MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055396581 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/6/192

THE CARNEGIE HUBBLE PROGRAM

2011· article· en· W2055396581 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCepheid variableHubble's lawCalibrationExtinction (optical mineralogy)Cosmic distance ladderSensitivity (control systems)Systematic error

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an overview of and preliminary results from an ongoing comprehensive program that has a goal of determining the Hubble constant to a systematic accuracy of ±2%. As part of this program, we are currently obtaining 3.6 μm data using the Infrared Array Camera on Spitzer , and the program is designed to include James Webb Space Telescope in the future. We demonstrate that the mid-infrared period–luminosity relation for Cepheids at 3.6 μm is the most accurate means of measuring Cepheid distances to date. At 3.6 μm, it is possible to minimize the known remaining systematic uncertainties in the Cepheid extragalactic distance scale. We discuss the advantages of 3.6 μm observations in minimizing systematic effects in the Cepheid calibration of H 0 including the absolute zero point, extinction corrections, and the effects of metallicity on the colors and magnitudes of Cepheids. We undertake three independent tests of the sensitivity of the mid-IR Cepheid Leavitt Law to metallicity, which when combined will allow a robust constraint on the effect. Finally, we provide a new mid-IR Tully–Fisher relation for spiral galaxies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.036

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations61
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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