MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065132163 · doi:10.1086/512767

X‐Ray Supercavities in the Hydra A Cluster and the Outburst History of the Central Galaxy’s Active Nucleus

2007· article· en· W2065132163 on OpenAlexaff
M. W. Wise, B. R. McNamara, P. E. J. Nulsen, J. C. Houck, L. P. David

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsSupermassive black holeAstronomyGalaxySolar massOutflowCooling flowBrightest cluster galaxyBlack hole (networking)Active galactic nucleusRADIUSSurface brightnessGalaxy cluster

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 227 ks Chandra X-ray image of the hot plasma in the Hydra A cluster has revealed an extensive cavity system. The system was created by a continuous outflow or a series of bursts from the nucleus of the central galaxy over the past 200-500 Myr. The cavities have displaced 10% of the plasma within a 300 kpc radius of the central galaxy, creating a swiss-cheese-like topology in the hot gas. The surface brightness decrements are consistent with empty cavities oriented within 40° of the plane of the sky. The outflow has deposited upward of 1061 ergs into the cluster gas, most of which was propelled beyond the inner ~100 kpc cooling region. The supermassive black hole has accreted at a rate of approximately 0.1-0.25 Msolar yr-1 over this time frame, which is a small fraction of the Eddington rate of a ~109 Msolar black hole, but is dramatically larger than the Bondi rate. Given the previous evidence for a circumnuclear disk of cold gas in Hydra A, these results are consistent with the AGN being powered primarily by infalling cold gas. The cavity system is shadowed perfectly by 330 MHz radio emission. Such low-frequency synchrotron emission may be an excellent proxy for X-ray cavities and thus the total energy liberated by the supermassive black hole.

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 score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations201
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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