MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062713883 · doi:10.1086/503559

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Survey: Quasar Luminosity Function from Data Release 3

2006· article· en· W2062713883 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon T. Richards, Michael A. Strauss, Xiaohui Fan, Patrick B. Hall, Sebastian Jester, Donald P. Schneider, D. E. vanden Berk, Chris Stoughton, Scott F. Anderson, Robert J. Brunner, Jim Gray, James E. Gunn, Željko Ivezić, Margaret K. Kirkland, G. R. Knapp, J. Loveday, Avery Meiksin, Adrian Pope, Alexander S. Szalay, A. Thakar, B. Yanny, Donald G. York, John C. Barentine, H. Brewington, J. Brinkmann, M. Fukugita, Michael Harvanek, S. Kent, S. J. Kleinman, J. Krzesiński, Daniel C. Long, Robert H. Lupton, Thomas Nash, Eric H. Neilsen, A. Nitta, David J. Schlegel, Stephanie A. Snedden

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedshiftQuasarAstrophysicsPhysicsSkySupermassive black holeLuminosity functionRedshift surveyLuminosityAstronomyAccretion (finance)Galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We determine the number counts and z = 0-5 luminosity function for a well-defined, homogeneous sample of quasars from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). We conservatively define the most uniform statistical sample possible, consisting of 15,343 quasars within an effective area of 1622 deg 2 that was derived from a parent sample of 46,420 spectroscopically confirmed broad-line quasars in the 5282 deg 2 of imaging data from SDSS Data Release 3. The sample extends from i = 15 to 19.1 at z ≲ 3 and to i = 20.2 for z ≳ 3. The number counts and luminosity function agree well with the results of the Two Degree Field QSO Redshift Survey (2QZ) at redshifts and luminosities at which the SDSS and 2QZ quasar samples overlap, but the SDSS data probe to much higher redshifts than does the 2QZ sample. The number density of luminous quasars peaks between redshifts 2 and 3, although uncertainties in the selection function in this range do not allow us to determine the peak redshift more precisely. Our best-fit model has a flatter bright-end slope at high redshift than at low redshift. For z < 2.4 the data are best fit by a redshift-independent slope of β = -3.1 [Φ( L ) ∝ L β ]. Above z = 2.4 the slope flattens with redshift to β ≳ -2.37 at z = 5. This slope change, which is significant at the ≳5 σ level, must be accounted for in models of the evolution of accretion onto supermassive black holes.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.006

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations883
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207