MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2505937109 · doi:10.1002/asna.201612344

Constraining the shielded wind scenario in PG 2112+059

2016· article· en· W2505937109 on OpenAlexaff
C. Saez, W. N. Brandt, F. E. Bauer, Fred Hamann, G. Chartas, S. C. Gallagher

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomische Nachrichten · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsQuasarAstrophysicsAstronomyAbsorption (acoustics)IonizationEmission spectrumGalaxySpectral lineOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The physical scenario describing the origin of quasar winds remains largely unsettled due to our failure to account for X‐ray weak BAL quasars. We approach this problem by studying the relation between the inner part of the outflow which is likely to be shielding the X‐ray emission and the UV winds characterized by broad absorption lines (BALs). In particular, we aim to probe the wind‐shield connection in the highly X‐ray variable BAL quasar PG 2112+059, which has exhibited periods of X‐ray weakness and X‐ray normality in the past. A set of two 20 ks Chandra observations and two contemporaneous HST observations, separated by at least eight months, combined with a nearly simultaneous archival Chandra ‐HST observation from 2002, afford us a unique opportunity to study the connection between the shield (which is thought to be responsible for the X‐ray absorption) and the ionization state of the wind (observed as UV BAL features; e.g., Civ and Ovi lines) over various timescales. In this review, which was based on a presentation in the XMM‐Newton 2015 Science Workshop, we provide background relevant to our study and briefly analyze a recent Chandra observation of our new set of multiwavelength observations of PG 2112+059. (© 2016 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomische NachrichtenSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207