Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present note updates the information published in my recent monograph on The Galaxies of the Local Group . Highlights include (1) the addition of the newly discovered Cetus dwarf spheroidal as a certain member of the Local Group; (2) an improved distance for the Sagittarius dwarf irregular galaxy (SagDIG), which now places this object very close to the edge of the Local Group zero‐velocity surface; (3) more information on the evolutionary histories of some individual Local Group members; and (4) improved distance determinations to, and luminosities for, a number of Local Group members. These data increase the number of certain (or probable) Local Group members to 36. The spatial distribution of these galaxies supports Hubble's claim that the Local Group "is isolated in the general field." Currently available evidence suggests that star formation continued much longer in many dwarf spheroidals than it did in the main body of the Galactic halo. It is suggested that "young" globular clusters, such as Ruprecht 106, might have formed in now defunct dwarf spheroidals. Assuming SagDIG, which is the most remote Local Group galaxy, to lie on, or just inside, the zero‐velocity surface of the Local Group yields a dynamical age ≳ 17.9 ± 2.7 Gyr. However, this value is meaningful only if the outer regions of the local Group are in virial equilibrium.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.323 | 0.219 |
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".