MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104788312

The M31 Globular Cluster Luminosity Function

2001· article· en· W3104788312 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterAstrophysicsPhotometry (optics)MetallicityPhysicsHaloCluster (spacecraft)PopulationLuminosity functionLuminosityGalaxyAstronomyStarsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We combine our compilation of photometry of M31 globular cluster and probable cluster candidates with new near-infrared photometry for 30 objects. Using these data we determine the globular cluster luminosity function (GCLF) in multiple filters for the M31 halo clusters. We find a GCLF peak and dispersion of V_0^0=16.84 +/-0.11, sigma_t=0.93 +/- 0.13 (Gaussian sigma = 1.20 +/- 0.14), consistent with previous results. The halo GCLF peak colors (e.g., B^0_0 - V^0_0) are consistent with the average cluster colors. We also measure V-band GCLF parameters for several other subsamples of the M31 globular cluster population. The inner third of the clusters have a GCLF peak significantly brigher than that of the outer clusters (delta V =~ 0.5mag). Dividing the sample by both galacticentric distance and metallicity, we find that the GCLF also varies with metallicity, as the metal-poor clusters are on average 0.36 mag fainter than the metal-rich clusters. Our modeling of the catalog selection effects suggests that they are not the cause of the measured differences, but a more complete, less-contaminated M31 cluster catalog is required for confirmation. Our results imply that dynamical destruction is not the only factor causing variation in the M31 GCLF: metallicity, age, and cluster initial mass function may also be important.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations65
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207