MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2624449111 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac88a

Globular Clusters in a Cosmological N-body Simulation

2018· article· en· W2624449111 on OpenAlexaff
R. G. Carlberg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of TorontoHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGlobular clusterAstrophysicsHaloAstronomyMilky WayRedshiftStar clusterGalactic haloStar formationStarsGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Stellar dynamical model globular clusters are introduced into reconstituted versions of the dark matter halos of the Via Lactea II (VL-2) simulation to follow the star cluster tidal mass-loss and stellar stream formation. The clusters initially evolve within their local sub-galactic halo, later being accreted into the main halo. Stars are continually removed from the clusters, but those that emerged in the sub-galactic halos are dispersed in a wide stream when accreted into the main halo. Thin tidal streams that survive to the present can begin to form once a cluster is in the main halo. A higher-redshift start places the star clusters in denser halos, where they are subject to stronger tides leading to higher average mass-loss rates. A z = 3 start leads to a rich set of star streams, with nearly all within 100 kpc having a remnant progenitor star cluster in the stream. In contrast, with a z = 8 start, all star clusters that are accreted onto the main halo are completely dissolved. These results are compared to the available data on Milky Way streams, where the majority of streams do not have clearly associated globular clusters, which, if generally true, suggests that there were at least twice as many massive globular clusters at high redshift.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→