MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088439564 · doi:10.1086/320377

Quasars in the 2MASS Second Incremental Data Release

2001· article· en· W2088439564 on OpenAlexaff
Wayne Barkhouse, Patrick B. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuasarAstrophysicsOVV quasarPhysicsInfraredLuminosityAstronomyActive galactic nucleusGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the 2MASS Second Incremental Data Release, we have searched for near infrared counterparts to 13214 quasars from the Veron-Cetty & Veron (2000) catalog. We have detected counterparts within 4 ′ ′ for 2277 of the approximately 6320 quasars within the area covered by the 2MASS Second Incremental Data Release. Only 1.6 % of these are expected to be chance coincidences. Though this sample is heterogeneous, we find that known radio-loud quasars are more likely to have large near-infrared-to-optical luminosity ratios than radio-quiet quasars are, at a statistically significant level. This is consistent with dust-reddened quasars being more common in radio-selected samples than in optically-selected samples, due to stronger selection effects against dust-reddened quasars in the latter. We also find a statistically significant dearth of optically luminous quasars with large near-infrared-to-optical luminosity ratios. This can be explained in a dust obscuration model but not in a model where synchrotron emission extends from the radio into the near-infrared and creates such large ratios. We also find that selection of quasar candidates from the B − J/J − K color-color diagram, modelled on the V −J/J −K selection method of Warren, Hewett & Foltz (2000), is likely to be more sensitive to dust-obscured quasars than selection using only infrared-infrared colors. Subject headings: catalogs — infrared: general — quasars: general — galaxies: active – 3 – 1.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

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

Citations101
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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