GLOBULAR CLUSTER SCALE SIZES IN GIANT GALAXIES: THE CASE OF M87 AND THE ROLE OF ORBITAL ANISOTROPY AND TIDAL FILLING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present new Hubble Space Telescope imaging of the outer regions of M87 in order to study its globular cluster (GC) population out to large galactocentric distances. We discuss, particularly, the relationship between GC effective radii r h and projected galactocentric distance R gc . The observations suggest a shallow trend out to R gc ∼ 100 kpc, in agreement with studies of other giant elliptical galaxies. To theoretically reproduce this relationship, we simulate GC populations with various distributions of orbits. For an isotropic distribution of cluster orbits, we find a steeper trend of . Instead, we suggest that (1) if the cluster system has an orbital anisotropy profile, where orbits become preferentially radial with increasing galactocentric distance, and (2) if clusters become more tidally underfilling with galactocentric distance, then the observed relationship can be recovered. We also apply this approach to the red and blue GC populations separately and predict that red clusters are preferentially underfilling at large R gc and have a more isotropic distribution of orbits than blue clusters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".