MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

On the dust geometry in radio-loud active galactic nuclei

2010· article· en· W2159811589 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive galactic nucleusInfraredCosmic dustTorusSpectral energy distributionCircumstellar dustInterstellar mediumSilicate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use photometric and spectroscopic infrared observations obtained with the Spitzer Space Telescope of 12 radio-loud active galactic nuclei to investigate the dust geometry. Our approach is to look at the change of the infrared spectral energy distribution (SED) and the strength of the 10-μm silicate feature with jet viewing angle. We find that (i) a combination of three or four blackbodies fits well the infrared SED, (ii) the sources viewed closer to the jet axis appear to have stronger warm (∼300–800 K) and cold (∼150–250 K) dust emissions relative to the hot component and (iii) the silicate features are always in emission and strongly redshifted. We test clumpy torus models and find that (i) they approximate well the mid-infrared part of the SED, but significantly underpredict the fluxes at both near- and far-infrared wavelengths; (ii) they can constrain the dust composition (in our case to that of the standard interstellar medium); (iii) they require relatively large (∼10–20 per cent the speed of light) redward displacements and (iv) they give robust total mass estimates, but are insensitive to the assumed geometry.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations25
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→