The<i>Hubble Space Telescope</i>Key Project on the Extragalactic Distance Scale. XXIV. The Calibration of Tully‐Fisher Relations and the Value of the Hubble Constant
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the calibration of BVRIH-0.5 Tully-Fisher relations based on Cepheid distances to 21 galaxies within 25 Mpc and 23 clusters within 10,000 km s-1. These relations have been applied to several distant cluster surveys in order to derive a value for the Hubble constant, H0, mainly concentrating on an I-band all-sky survey by Giovanelli and collaborators, consisting of total I magnitudes and 50% line width data for ~550 galaxies in 16 clusters. For comparison, we also derive the values of H0 using surveys in the B and V bands by Bothun and collaborators, and in H band by Aaronson and collaborators. Careful comparisons with various other databases from the literature suggest that the H-band data, which have isophotal magnitudes extrapolated from aperture magnitudes rather than total magnitudes, are subject to systematic uncertainties. Taking a weighted average of the estimates of Hubble constants from four surveys, we obtain H0 = 71 ± 4 (random) ± 7 (systematic). We have also investigated how the value of H0 is affected by various systematic uncertainties, such as the internal extinction correction method used, Tully-Fisher slopes and shapes, a possible metallicity dependence of the Cepheid period-luminosity relation, and cluster population incompleteness bias.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it