The dynamics of the globular cluster NGC 3201 out to the Jacobi radius
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT As part of a chemodynamical survey of five nearby globular clusters with 2dF/AAOmega on the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT), we have obtained kinematic information for the globular cluster NGC 3201. Our new observations confirm the presence of a significant velocity gradient across the cluster which can almost entirely be explained by the high proper motion of the cluster (${\sim}9\, \mathrm{mas\, yr^{-1}}$). After subtracting the contribution of this perspective rotation, we found a remaining rotation signal with an amplitude of ${\sim}1\, \mathrm{km\, s^{-1}}$ around a different axis to what we expect from the tidal tails and the potential escapers, suggesting that this rotation is internal and can be a remnant of its formation process. At the outer part, we found a rotational signal that is likely a result from potential escapers. The proper motion dispersion at large radii reported by Bianchini et al. ($3.5\pm 0.9\, \mathrm{km\, s^{-1}}$) has previously been attributed to dark matter. Here, we show that the LOS dispersion between 0.5 and 1 Jacobi radius is lower ($2.01\pm 0.18\, \mathrm{km\, s^{-1}}$), yet above the predictions from an N-body model of NGC 3201 that we ran for this study ($1.48\pm 0.14\, \mathrm{km\, s^{-1}}$). Based on the simulation, we find that potential escapers cannot fully explain the observed velocity dispersion. We also estimate the effect on the velocity dispersion of different amounts of stellar-mass black holes and unbound stars from the tidal tails with varying escape rates and find that these effects cannot explain the difference between the LOS dispersion and the N-body model. Given the recent discovery of tidal tail stars at large distances from the cluster, a dark matter halo is an unlikely explanation. We show that the effect of binary stars, which is not included in the N-body model, is important and can explain part of the difference in dispersion. We speculate that the remaining difference must be the result of effects not included in the N-body model, such as initial cluster rotation, velocity anisotropy, and Galactic substructure.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".