Peeking beneath the precision floor − II. Probing the chemo-dynamical histories of the potential globular cluster siblings, NGC 288 and NGC 362
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The assembly history of the Milky Way (MW) is a rapidly evolving subject, with numerous small accretion events and at least one major merger proposed in the MW’s history. Accreted alongside these dwarf galaxies are globular clusters (GCs), which act as spatially coherent remnants of these past events. Using high precision differential abundance measurements from our recently published study, we investigate the likelihood that the MW clusters NGC 362 and NGC 288 are galactic siblings, accreted as part of the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus (GSE) merger. To do this, we compare the two GCs at the 0.01 dex level for 20 + elements for the first time. Strong similarities are found, with the two showing chemical similarity on the same order as those seen between the three LMC GCs, NGC 1786, NGC 2210-, and NGC 2257. However, when comparing GC abundances directly to GSE stars, marked differences are observed. NGC 362 shows good agreement with GSE stars in the ratio of Eu to Mg and Si, as well as a clear dominance in the r- compared to the s-process, while NGC 288 exhibits only a slight r-process dominance. When fitting the two GC abundances with a GSE-like galactic chemical evolution model, NGC 362 shows agreement with both the model predictions and GSE abundance ratios (considering Si, Ni, Ba, and Eu) at the same metallicity. This is not the case for NGC 288. We propose that the two are either not galactic siblings, or GSE was chemically inhomogeneous enough to birth two similar, but not identical clusters with distinct chemistry relative to constituent stars.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".