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, Omega 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) <= 5.0x10^-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) <= 1.6x10^30 erg s^-1, for a cluster distance of 5.2 kpc, Galactic column density N_H = 1.2x10^21 cm^-2, and powerlaw spectrum with Gamma = 2.3. If a ~10^4 M_sun 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 eta <~ 10^-6 - 10^-8. This study leaves open three possibilities: either Omega 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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.011
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 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

Citations39
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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