Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data are currently available on the luminosities and half-light radii of 101 globular clusters associated with low-luminosity parent galaxies. The luminosity distribution of globular clusters embedded in dwarf galaxies having M v > -16 is found to differ dramatically from that for globular clusters surrounding giant host galaxies with M v < -16. The luminosity distribution of globular clusters in giant galaxies peaks at M v ∼ -7.5, whereas that for dwarf galaxies is found to increase monotonically down to the completeness limit of the cluster data at M v ∼ -5.0. Unexpectedly, the power-law distribution of the luminosities of globular clusters hosted by dwarf galaxies is seen to be much flatter than that of the bright, unevolved part of the luminosity distribution of globular clusters associated with giant galaxies. The specific frequency of globular clusters fainter than M v = -7.5 is found to be particularly high in dwarf galaxies. The luminosity distribution of the LMC globular clusters is similar to that found in giant galaxies and differs from those of globular clusters in dwarf galaxies. The present data appear to show no strong dependence of globular cluster luminosity on the morphological type of their parent galaxies. No attempt is made to explain the unexpected discovery that the luminosity distribution of globular clusters is critically dependent on parent galaxy luminosity (or mass) but insensitive to the morphological type of the host galaxy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".