MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566749631 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/37

REDSHIFT-INDEPENDENT DISTANCES IN THE NASA/IPAC EXTRAGALACTIC DATABASE: METHODOLOGY, CONTENT, AND USE OF NED-D

2016· article· en· W2566749631 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Steer, Barry F. Madore, J. M. Mazzarella, M. Schmitz, H. G. Corwin, B. Chan, Rick Ebert, G. Hélou, K. D. Baker, X. Chen, C. Frayer, Jeff Jacobson, Tak Lo, P. Ogle, O. Pevunova, Scott Terek

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsBell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedshiftCompendiumCosmic distance ladderGalaxyPhysicsHubble's lawPercentileDatabaseAstrophysicsComputer scienceStatisticsGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Estimates of galaxy distances based on indicators that are independent of cosmological redshift are fundamental to astrophysics. Researchers use them to establish the extragalactic distance scale, to underpin estimates of the Hubble constant, and to study peculiar velocities induced by gravitational attractions that perturb the motions of galaxies with respect to the “Hubble flow” of universal expansion. In 2006 the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) began making available a comprehensive compilation of redshift-independent extragalactic distance estimates. A decade later, this compendium of distances (NED-D) now contains more than 100,000 individual estimates based on primary and secondary indicators, available for more than 28,000 galaxies, and compiled from over 2000 references in the refereed astronomical literature. This paper describes the methodology, content, and use of NED-D, and addresses challenges to be overcome in compiling such distances. Currently, 75 different distance indicators are in use. We include a figure that facilitates comparison of the indicators with significant numbers of estimates in terms of the minimum, 25th percentile, median, 75th percentile, and maximum distances spanned. Brief descriptions of the indicators, including examples of their use in the database, are given in an appendix.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0230.025
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.008

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations62
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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