VEGAS-SSS. II. Comparing the globular cluster systems in NGC 3115 and NGC 1399 using VEGAS and FDS survey data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyze the globular cluster (GC) systems in two very different galaxies, NGC 3115 and NGC 1399. With the papers of this series, we aim at highlighting common and different properties in the GC systems in galaxies covering a wide range of parameter space. We compare the GCs in NGC 3115 and NGC 1399 as derived from the analysis of one square degree u-, g-, and i-band images taken with the VST telescope as part of the VST early-type galaxy survey (VEGAS) and Fornax deep survey (FDS). We selected GC candidates using as reference the morpho-photometric and color properties of confirmed GCs. The surface density maps of GCs in NGC 3115 reveal a morphology similar to the light profile of field stars; the same is true when blue and red GCs are taken separately. The GC maps for NGC 1399 are richer in structure and confirm the existence of an intra-cluster GC component. We confirm the presence of a spatial offset in the NGC 1399 GC centroid and find that the centroid of the GCs for NGC 3115 coincides well with the galaxy center. Both GC systems show unambiguous color bimodality in (g − i) and (u − i); the color–color relations of the two GC systems are slightly different with NGC 3115 appearing more linear than NGC 1399. The azimuthal average of the radial density profiles in both galaxies reveals a larger spatial extent for the total GCs population with respect to the galaxy surface brightness profile. For both galaxies, the red GCs have radial density profiles compatible with the galaxy light profile, while the radial profiles for blue GCs are shallower. As for the specific frequency of GCs, SN, we find it is a factor of two higher in NGC 1399 than for NGC 3115; this is mainly the result of extra blue GCs. By inspecting the radial behavior of the specific frequency, SN(
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".