MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985132801 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/773/2/l31

A DEEP <i>CHANDRA</i> X-RAY LIMIT ON THE PUTATIVE IMBH IN OMEGA CENTAURI

2013· article· en· W1985132801 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupermassive black holeIntermediate-mass black holeLuminosityGalactic CenterOmegaAccretion (finance)Observatory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a sensitive X-ray search for the proposed intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) in the massive Galactic cluster, ω Centauri (NGC 5139). Combining Chandra X-ray Observatory data from Cycles 1 and 13, we obtain a deep (∼291 ks) exposure of the central regions of the cluster. We find no evidence for an X-ray point source near any of the cluster's proposed dynamical centers, and place an upper limit on the X-ray flux from a central source of f X (0.5–7.0 keV) ⩽5.0 × 10 −16 erg cm −2 s −1 , after correcting for absorption. This corresponds to an unabsorbed X-ray luminosity of L X (0.5–7.0 keV) ⩽1.6 × 10 30 erg s −1 , for a cluster distance of 5.2 kpc, Galactic column density N H = 1.2 × 10 21 cm −2 , and power-law spectrum with Γ = 2.3. If a ∼10 4 IMBH resides in the cluster's core, as suggested by some stellar dynamical studies, its Eddington luminosity would be L Edd ∼10 42 erg s −1 . The new X-ray limit would then establish an Eddington ratio of L X / L Edd ≲ 10 −12 , a factor of ∼10 lower than even the quiescent state of our Galaxy's notoriously inefficient supermassive black hole Sgr A*, and imply accretion efficiencies as low as η ≲ 10 −6 –10 −8 . This study leaves open three possibilities: either ω Cen does not harbor an IMBH or, if an IMBH does exist, it must experience very little or very inefficient accretion.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 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

Citations39
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207