The<i>Hubble Space Telescope</i>Key Project on the Extragalactic Distance Scale. XXVII. A Derivation of the Hubble Constant Using the Fundamental Plane and \documentclass{aastex} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{bm} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pifont} \usepackage{stmaryrd} \usepackage{textcomp} \usepackage{portland,xspace} \usepackage{amsmath,amsxtra} \usepackage[OT2,OT1]{fontenc} \newcommand\cyr{ \renewcommand\rmdefault{wncyr} \renewcommand\sfdefault{wncyss} \renewcommand\encodingdefault{OT2} \normalfont \selectfont} \DeclareTextFontCommand{\textcyr}{\cyr} \pagestyle{empty} \DeclareMathSizes{10}{9}{7}{6} \begin{document} \landscape $D_{n}$ \end{document} ‐σ Relations in Leo I, Virgo, and Fornax
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using published photometry and spectroscopy, we construct the fundamental plane and D n -σ relations in Leo I, Virgo, and Fornax. The published Cepheid period-luminosity (PL) relations to spirals in these clusters fixes the relation between angular size and metric distance for both the fundamental plane and D n -σ relations. Using the locally calibrated fundamental plane, we infer distances to a sample of clusters with a mean redshift of cz ≈ 6000 km s -1 , and derive a value of H 0 = 78 ± 5 ± 9 km s -1 Mpc -1 (random and systematic errors, respectively) for the local expansion rate. This value includes a correction for depth effects in the Cepheid distances to the nearby clusters, which decreased the deduced value of the expansion rate by 5% ± 5%. If one further adopts the metallicity correction to the Cepheid PL relation as derived by the Key Project, the value of the Hubble constant would decrease by a further 6% ± 4%. These two sources of systematic error, when combined with a ±6% error due to the uncertainty in the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud, a ±4% error due to uncertainties in the WFPC2 calibration, and several small sources of uncertainty in the fundamental plane analysis, yield a total systematic uncertainty of ±11%. We find that the values obtained using either the cosmic microwave background (CMB) or a flow-field model, for the reference frame of the distant clusters, agree to within 1%. The D n -σ relation also produces similar results, as expected from the correlated nature of the two scaling relations. A complete discussion of the sources of random and systematic error in this determination of the Hubble constant is also given, in order to facilitate comparison with the other secondary indicators being used by the Key Project.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.054 |
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".