MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2239557981 · doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/61

A CONSTRAINT ON QUASAR CLUSTERING AT z = 5 FROM A BINARY QUASAR*

2016· article· en· W2239557981 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuasarRedshiftCluster analysisBinary numberLuminosityCorrelation function (quantum field theory)Spectral lineOVV quasar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We report the discovery of a quasar pair at z = 5 separated by 21″. Both objects were identified as quasar candidates using simple color selection techniques applied to photometric catalogs from the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) Legacy Survey (CFHTLS). Spectra obtained with the MMT present no discernible offset in redshift between the two objects; on the other hand, there are clear differences in the emission line profiles and in the multiwavelength spectral energy distributions that strongly disfavor the hypothesis that they are gravitationally lensed images of a single quasar. Both quasars are surprisingly bright given their proximity (a projected separation of ∼135 kpc), with i = 19.4 and i = 21.4. Previous measurements of the luminosity function demonstrate that luminous quasars are extremely rare at z = 5; the existence of this pair suggests that quasars have strong small-scale clustering at high redshift. Assuming a real-space correlation function of the form ξ(r) ∝ (r/r 0)−2, this discovery implies a correlation length of r 0 ≳ 20h −1 Mpc, consistent with a rapid strengthening of quasar clustering at high redshift as seen in previous observations and predicted by theoretical models where feedback effects are inefficient at shutting down black hole growth at high redshift.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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