MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068495602 · doi:10.1086/301587

The Properties of the X-Ray-selected EMSS Sample of BL Lacertae Objects

2000· article· en· W2068495602 on OpenAlexaff
Travis A. Rector, John T. Stocke, Eric S. Perlman, S. L. Morris, I. M. Gioia

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsDominion Astrophysical Observatory
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBL Lac objectPhysicsAstrophysicsPopulationLuminositySample (material)RedshiftGalaxyRadio galaxyActive galactic nucleusAstronomyEinstein TelescopeFlux (metallurgy)Blazar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present updated and complete radio, optical and X-ray data for BL Lacs in the Einstein Medium Sensitivity Survey (EMSS). The complete "M91" sample first presented in Morris et al. is updated to include 26 BL Lacs in total and we define a new, virtually complete sample consisting of 41 EMSS BL Lacs (the "D40" sample). New high signal-to-noise, arcsecond-resolution VLA observations are also presented for eleven EMSS BL Lacs, completing VLA observations of the M91 sample. The addition of four new objects, as well as updated X-ray flux and redshift information, has increased the v/v_max value for the M91 sample to 0.399\pm0.057; and v/v_max = 0.427\pm0.045 for the newly defined D40 sample. In conjunction with other studies of X-ray-selected BL Lac (XBL) samples, these results solidify negative evolution for XBLs, especially for more extreme high-energy-peaked BL Lacs. The observed v/v_max, spectral and radio properties of XBLs are completely consistent with being the beamed population of low-luminosity, FR-1 radio galaxies. However, our VLA observations do confirm that XBLs are too core-dominated to be consistent with a beamed population of FR-1s seen at intermediate angles, as suggested by the unified model, if XBLs have moderate outflow velocities (gamma approx 5).

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 score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations117
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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