Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction A detailed discussion of galaxies that may be located along the outer fringes of the Local Group has been given by van den Bergh (1994b). In general three criteria can be used to assess the probability that a galaxy might be associated with the Local Group: (1) The distance to that galaxy should be ≲1.5 Mpc (see Section 18.1), (2) it should lie close to the relation between radial velocity and distance from the solar apex (V r versus cos θ diagram) for well-established Local Group members, and (3) it should not appear to be associated with a group of galaxies that is known to be located well beyond the limits of the Local Group. On the basis of these criteria van den Bergh (1994b) concluded that it was safe to exclude the following galaxies from membership in the Local Group: (1) Sculptor irregular = UKS 2323–326, (2) Maffei 1 and its companions, (3) UGC-A86 = A0355 + 66, (4) NGC 1560, (5) NGC 1569, (6) NGC 5237, and (7) DDO 187 (Hoessel, Saha & Danielson 1998). A particularly strong concentration of Local Group suspects, which includes (2), (3), (4), and (5) listed above, occurs in the IC 342/Maffei group (van den Bergh 1971, Krismer, Tully & Gioia 1995). Krismer et al. place this group at a distance of (3.6 ± 0.5) Mpc. Cassiopeia 1, which was once regarded as a Local Group suspect (Tikhonov 1996), also appears to be a member of the IC 342/Maffei group.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".