The relation between globular cluster systems and supermassive black holes in spiral galaxies: The case study of NGC 4258
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aim to explore the relationship between globular cluster total number, {N}{GC}, and central black hole mass, M •, in spiral galaxies, and compare it with that recently reported for ellipticals. We present results for the Sbc galaxy NGC 4258, from Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope data. Thanks to water masers with Keplerian rotation in a circumnuclear disk, NGC 4258 has the most precisely measured extragalactic distance and supermassive black hole mass to date. The globular cluster (GC) candidate selection is based on the ({u}* -{I}\\prime ) versus ({I}\\prime -{K}s) diagram, which is a superb tool to distinguish GCs from foreground stars, background galaxies, and young stellar clusters, and hence can provide the best number counts of GCs from photometry alone, virtually free of contamination, even if the galaxy is not completely edge-on. The mean optical and optical-near-infrared colors of the clusters are consistent with those of the Milky Way and M 31, after extinction is taken into account. We directly identify 39 GC candidates; after completeness correction, GC luminosity function extrapolation, and correction for spatial coverage, we calculate a total {N}{GC}=144+/- {31}-36+38 (random and systematic uncertainties, respectively). We have thus increased to six the sample of spiral galaxies with measurements of both M • and {N}{GC}. NGC 4258 has a specific frequency {S}{{N}}=0.4+/- 0.1 (random uncertainty), and is consistent within 2σ with the {N}{GC} versus M • correlation followed by elliptical galaxies. The Milky Way continues to be the only spiral that deviates significantly from the relation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".