MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041258321 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba4ab

Revised and New Proper Motions for Confirmed and Candidate Milky Way Dwarf Galaxies

2020· article· en· W3041258321 on OpenAlexaff
Alan W. McConnachie, Kim A. Venn

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMilky WayAstrophysicsDwarf galaxyGalaxyLocal GroupDwarf galaxy problemAstronomyPhotometry (optics)StarsDwarf spheroidal galaxyProper motionInteracting galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A new derivation of systemic proper motions of Milky Way satellites is presented and applied to 59 confirmed or candidate dwarf galaxy satellites using Gaia Data Release 2. This constitutes all known Milky Way dwarf galaxies (and likely candidates) as of 2020 May, except for the Magellanic Clouds, the Canis Major and Hydra 1 stellar overdensities, and the tidally disrupting Bootes III and Sagittarius dwarf galaxies. We derive systemic proper motions for the first time for Indus 1, DES J0225+0304, Cetus 2, Pictor 2, and Leo T, but note that the latter three rely on photometry that is of poorer quality than that of the rest of the sample. We cannot resolve a signal for Bootes 4, Cetus 3, Indus 2, Pegasus 3, or Virgo 1. Our method is inspired by the maximum likelihood approach of Pace & Li and examines simultaneously the spatial, color–magnitude, and proper motion distribution of sources. Systemic proper motions are derived without the need to identify confirmed radial velocity members, although the proper motions of these stars, where available, are incorporated into the analysis through a prior on the model. The associated uncertainties on the systemic proper motions are on average a factor of ∼1.4 smaller than existing literature values. Analysis of the implied membership distribution of the satellites suggests that we accurately identify member stars with a contamination rate lower than 1 in 20.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations96
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207