Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the three nearest luminous galaxies, the Milky Way System, the Andromeda Galaxy, and NGC 5128, the brightest globular clusters are rounder than the faintest ones. On the other hand (contrary to some previous results) the flattening of individual Large Magellanic Cloud clusters is found to be independent of their luminosities. This suggests the possibility that the relationship between the flattening and luminosity of clusters might depend on host galaxy luminosity. No significant differences are found between the intrinsic flattening distributions of Galactic old halo, Galactic young halo, and Galactic bulge/disk clusters. Such a dependence might perhaps have been expected if tidal forces (which are largest at small Galactocentric distances) removed angular momentum from globular clusters. The preliminary conclusion by Norris that clusters with blue horizontal branches are more flattened than red horizontal-branch (HB) clusters is not confirmed by the larger database that is now available. In other words there is no evidence for the puzzling claimed correlation between the flattening and the horizontal branch morphology of Galactic globular 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".