MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093077071 · doi:10.1086/320638

Final Results from the<i>Hubble Space Telescope</i>Key Project to Measure the Hubble Constant

2001· article· en· W2093077071 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsDominion Astrophysical ObservatoryHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCepheid variableHubble's lawDistance modulusGalaxySpiral galaxyHubble space telescopeCosmic distance ladderAdvanced Camera for SurveysHubble Ultra-Deep Field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present here the final results of the Hubble Space Telescope ( HST ) Key Project to measure the Hubble constant. We summarize our method, the results, and the uncertainties, tabulate our revised distances, and give the implications of these results for cosmology. Our results are based on a Cepheid calibration of several secondary distance methods applied over the range of about 60-400 Mpc. The analysis presented here benefits from a number of recent improvements and refinements, including (1) a larger LMC Cepheid sample to define the fiducial period-luminosity (PL) relations, (2) a more recent HST Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) photometric calibration, (3) a correction for Cepheid metallicity, and (4) a correction for incompleteness bias in the observed Cepheid PL samples. We adopt a distance modulus to the LMC (relative to which the more distant galaxies are measured) of μ 0 = 18.50 ± 0.10 mag, or 50 kpc. New, revised distances are given for the 18 spiral galaxies for which Cepheids have been discovered as part of the Key Project, as well as for 13 additional galaxies with published Cepheid data. The new calibration results in a Cepheid distance to NGC 4258 in better agreement with the maser distance to this galaxy. Based on these revised Cepheid distances, we find values (in km s -1 Mpc -1 ) of H 0 = 71 ± 2 ± 6 (systematic) (Type Ia supernovae), H 0 = 71 ± 3 ± 7 (Tully-Fisher relation), H 0 = 70 ± 5 ± 6 (surface brightness fluctuations), H 0 = 72 ± 9 ± 7 (Type II supernovae), and H 0 = 82 ± 6 ± 9 (fundamental plane). We combine these results for the different methods with three different weighting schemes, and find good agreement and consistency with H 0 = 72 ± 8 km s -1 Mpc -1 . Finally, we compare these results with other, global methods for measuring H 0 .

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.016

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations3,311
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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