MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096534716 · doi:10.1086/316548

Updated Information on the Local Group

2000· article· en· W2096534716 on OpenAlexaff
Sidney van den Bergh

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)Dominion Astrophysical Observatory
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocal GroupGlobular clusterPhysicsDwarf galaxyAstrophysicsGalaxyAstronomyGroup (periodic table)Galaxy groupStar clusterGalaxy formation and evolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present note updates the information published in my recent monograph on \underline{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 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.'' Presently 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 \gtrsim 17.9 \pm 2.7 Gyr.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations97
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublications of the Astronomical Society of the PacificSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207