MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391886122 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stae470

Multimass modelling of milky way globular clusters – II. Present-day black hole populations

2024· article· en· W4391886122 on OpenAlexafffund
N Dickson, P. J. Smith, V. Hénault-Brunet, Mark Gieles, Holger Baumgardt

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónAgència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de RecercaAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónAlbert Ellis Institute
KeywordsGlobular clusterPhysicsMilky WayAstrophysicsBlack hole (networking)AstronomyGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Populations of stellar-mass black holes (BHs) in globular clusters (GCs) influence their dynamical evolution and have important implications on one of the main formation channels for gravitational wave sources. Inferring the size of these populations remains difficult, however. In this work, multimass models of 34 Milky Way GCs, first presented in Dickson et al., are used to explore the present-day BH populations. Direct constraints on both the total and visible mass components provided by several observables allow these models to accurately determine the distribution of the dark mass (including BHs) within clusters, as we demonstrate in a proof-of-concept fitting of the models to mock observations extracted from Monte Carlo cluster models. New constraints on the BH population retained to the present-day in each cluster are inferred from our models. We find that BH mass fractions ranging from 0 to 1 per cent of the total mass are typically required to explain the observations, except for ω Cen, for which we infer a mass fraction above 5 per cent, in agreement with previous works. Relationships between the dark remnant populations and other cluster parameters are examined, demonstrating a clear anticorrelation between the amount of BHs and mass segregation between visible stars, as well as a correlation between remnant mass fractions and the dynamical age of clusters. Our inferred BH populations are in good agreement overall with other recent studies using different methodologies, but with notable discrepancies for individual clusters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.209 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations→French-language works237,207→