MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2171218757 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stu199

A Council of Giants

2014· article· en· W2171218757 on OpenAlexaff
M. L. McCall

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsLocal GroupAstrophysicsGalaxyElliptical galaxySupercluster (genetic)AstronomyMilky WayFundamental plane (elliptical galaxies)Dwarf spheroidal galaxyGalaxy groupLenticular galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distances and near-infrared luminosities of the brightest galaxies in the Local Volume have been re-evaluated in order to gain a fully homogeneous collection of data for elucidating the framework of the Local Sheet and its relevance to Local Group evolution. It is demon-strated that the Local Sheet is both geometrically and dynamically distinct from the Local Supercluster and that the evolution of the Sheet and Local Group were probably intercon-nected. The Sheet is inclined by 8 ◦ with respect to the Local Supercluster, and the dispersion of giant members about the mid-plane is only 230 kpc. A “Council of Giants ” with a radius of 3.75Mpc encompasses the Local Group, demarcating a clear upper limit to the realm of influence of the Local Group. The only two giant elliptical galaxies in the Sheet sit on op-posite sides of the Council, raising the possibility that they have somehow shepherded the evolution of the Local Group. The position vector of the Andromeda galaxy with respect to the Milky Way deviates only 11 ◦ from the Sheet plane and only 11 ◦ from the projected axis of the ellipticals. The Local Group appears to be moving away from a ridge in the potential surface of the Council on a path parallel to the elliptical axis. Spin directions of the giants in

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations52
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→