MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040067310 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/2/1066

A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGN JET POWER AND RADIO POWER

2010· article· en· W2040067310 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadio galaxyAstrophysical jetScalingSynchrotronRelativistic particleJet (fluid)ElectronGalaxy clusterGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using Chandra X-ray and Very Large Array radio data, we investigate the scaling relationship between jet power, P jet , and synchrotron luminosity, P radio . We expand the sample presented in Bîrzan et al. to lower radio power by incorporating measurements for 21 giant elliptical galaxies (gEs) to determine if the Bîrzan et al. P jet – P radio scaling relations are continuous in form and scatter from gEs up to brightest cluster galaxies. We find a mean scaling relation of P jet ≈ 5.8 × 10 43 ( P radio /10 40 ) 0.70 erg s −1 which is continuous over ∼6–8 decades in P jet and P radio with a scatter of ≈ 0.7 dex. Our mean scaling relationship is consistent with the model presented in Willott et al. if the typical fraction of lobe energy in non-radiating particles to that in relativistic electrons is ≳100. We identify several gEs whose radio luminosities are unusually large for their jet powers and have radio sources which extend well beyond the densest parts of their X-ray halos. We suggest that these radio sources are unusually luminous because they were unable to entrain appreciable amounts of gas.

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)0.005
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations472
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207