Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data are presently available on the luminosities and half-light radii of 101 globular clusters associated with low-luminosity parent galaxies. The luminosity distribution of globulars 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 $M_{v} \sim -7.5$, whereas that for dwarfs is found to increases monotonically down to the completeness limit of the cluster data at $M_{v} \sim -5.0$. Unexpectedly, the power law distribution of the luminosities of globular clusters hosted by dwarf galaxies is seen to be much flatter than the that of bright unevolved part of the luminosity distribution of globular clusters associated with giant galaxies. The specific frequency of globular clusters that are 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 in giant galaxies, and differs from those of the globulars in dwarf galaxies. The present data appear to show no strong dependence of globular cluster luminosity on the morphological types 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 (mass?), but insensitive to the morphological type of their 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".