MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989886558 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/30

ACCRETION DISK TEMPERATURES OF QSOs: CONSTRAINTS FROM THE EMISSION LINES

2013· article· en· W1989886558 on OpenAlexaff
E. W. Bonning, G. A. Shields, A. C. Stevens, S. Salviander

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryFermilabMax-Planck-Institut für AstronomieUniversity of PittsburghJohns Hopkins UniversityMax-Planck-GesellschaftNew Mexico State UniversityAlfred P. Sloan FoundationNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationU.S. Department of EnergyUniversity of ChicagoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAstrophysicsQSOSPhysicsAccretion (finance)Emission spectrumAccretion discSpectral lineIntermediate polarThin diskIonizationLine (geometry)AstronomyQuasarGalaxyStarsWhite dwarf

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compare QSO emission-line spectra to predictions based on theoretical ionizing continua of accretion disks. The observed line intensities do not show the expected trend of higher ionization with theoretical accretion disk temperature as predicted from the black hole mass and accretion rate. Consistent with earlier studies, this suggests that the inner disk does not reach temperatures as high as expected from standard disk theory. Modified radial temperature profiles, taking account of winds or advection in the inner disk, achieve better agreement with observation. The emission lines of radio-detected and radio-undetected sources show different trends as a function of the theoretically predicted disk temperature.

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)0.002
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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