MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060871913 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/179

DISCOVERY OF AN ACTIVE SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLE IN THE BULGELESS GALAXY NGC 4561

2012· article· en· W2060871913 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupermassive black holeGalaxyLuminosityBlack hole (networking)Intermediate-mass black holeSolar massSpectral line

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present XMM-Newton observations of the Chandra-detected nuclear X-ray source in NGC 4561. The hard X-ray spectrum can be described by a model composed of an absorbed power-law with Gamma= 2.5^{+0.4}_{-0.3}, and column density N_H=1.9^{+0.1}_{-0.2} times 10^{22} atoms cm^{-2}. The absorption corrected luminosity of the source is L(0.2 - 10.0 keV) = 2.5 times 10^{41} ergs s^{-1}, with bolometric luminosity over 3 \times 10^{42} ergs s^{-1}. Based on the spectrum and the luminosity, we identify the nuclear X-ray source in NGC 4561 to be an AGN, with a black hole of mass M_BH > 20,000 solar masses. The presence of a supermassive black hole at the center of this bulge-less galaxy shows that black hole masses are not necessarily related to bulge properties, contrary to the general belief. Observations such as these call into question several theoretical models of BH--galaxy co-evolution that are based on merger-driven BH growth; secular processes clearly play an important role. Several emission lines are detected in the soft X-ray spectrum of the source which can be well parametrized by an absorbed diffuse thermal plasma with non-solar abundances of some heavy elements. Similar soft X-ray emission is observed in spectra of Seyfert 2 galaxies and low luminosity AGNs, suggesting an origin in the circumnuclear plasma.

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 score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations29
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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