MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031956233 · doi:10.1086/308304

The<i>Hubble Space Telescope</i>Key Project on the Extragalactic Distance Scale. XXVIII. Combining the Constraints on the Hubble Constant

2000· article· en· W2031956233 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsDominion Astrophysical ObservatoryHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCepheid variableHubble's lawGalaxyFundamental plane (elliptical galaxies)Milky WaySurface brightnessVirgo ClusterLocal GroupCosmic distance ladder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the launch of Hubble Space Telescope ( HST ) 9 yr ago, Cepheid distances to 25 galaxies have been determined for the purpose of calibrating secondary distance indicators. Eighteen of these have been measured by the HST Key Project team, six by the Supernova Calibration Project, and one independently by Tanvir. Collectively, this work sets out an array of survey markers over the region within 25 Mpc of the Milky Way. A variety of secondary distance indicators can now be calibrated, and the accompanying four papers employ the full set of 25 galaxies to consider the Tully-Fisher relation, the fundamental plane of elliptical galaxies, Type Ia supernovae, and surface brightness fluctuations. When calibrated with Cepheid distances, each of these methods yields a measurement of the Hubble constant and a corresponding measurement uncertainty. We combine these measurements in this paper, together with a model of the velocity field, to yield the best available estimate of the value of H 0 within the range of these secondary distance indicators and its uncertainty. The uncertainty in the result is modeled in an extensive simulation we call the "virtual Key Project." The velocity-field model includes the influence of the Virgo cluster, the Great Attractor, and the Shapley supercluster, but does not play a significant part in determining the result. The result is H 0 = 71 ± 6 km s -1 Mpc -1 . The largest contributor to the uncertainty of this 67% confidence level result is the distance of the Large Magellanic Cloud, which has been assumed to be 50 ± 3 kpc. This takes up the first 6.5% of our 9% error budget. Other contributors are the photometric calibration of the WFPC2 instrument, which takes up 4.5%, deviations from uniform Hubble flow in the volume sampled (≲2%), the composition sensitivity of the Cepheid period-luminosity relation (4%), and departures from a universal reddening law (~1%). These are the major components that , when combined in quadrature, make up the 9% total uncertainty. If the LMC distance modulus were systematically smaller by 1 σ than that adopted here, the derived value of the Hubble constant would increase by 4 km s -1 Mpc -1 . Most of the significant systematic errors are capable of amelioration in future work. These include the uncertainty in the photometric calibration of WFPC2, the LMC distance, and the reddening correction. A NICMOS study is in its preliminary reduction phase, addressing the last of these concerns. Various empirical analyses have suggested that Cepheid distance moduli are affected by metallicity differences. If we adopted the composition sensitivity obtained in the Key Project's study of M101, and employed the oxygen abundances measured spectroscopically in each of the Cepheid fields we have studied, the value of the Hubble constant would be reduced by 4% ± 2% to 68 ± 6 km s -1 Mpc -1 .

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.010

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.219
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 designObservational
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

Citations539
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207