MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590123418 · doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx029

The nature of the Lyman α emitter CR7: a persisting puzzle

2017· article· en· W2590123418 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Fabio Pacucci, A. Pallottini, Andrea Ferrara, S. Gallerani

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgricultural Adaptation Council
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsMetallicityPhotometry (optics)RedshiftStarsStar formationAstronomyGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The peculiar emission properties of the z ∼ 6.6 Lyα emitter COSMOS redshift 7 (CR7) have been initially interpreted with the presence of either a direct collapse black hole (DCBH) or a substantial mass of Pop III stars. Instead, updated photometric observations by Bowler et al. seem to suggest that CR7 is a more standard system. Here, we confirm that the original DCBH hypothesis is consistent also with the new data. Using radiation-hydrodynamic simulations, we reproduce the new infrared photometry with two models involving a Compton-thick DCBH of mass ≈7 × 106 M⊙ accreting (a) metal-free (Z = 0) gas with column density NH = 8 × 1025 cm−2 or (b) low-metallicity gas (Z = 5 × 10−3 Z⊙) with NH = 3 × 1024 cm−2. The best-fitting model reproduces the photometric data to within 1σ. Such metals can be produced by weak star-forming activity occurring after the formation of the DCBH. The main contribution to the Spitzer/IRAC 3.6 μm photometric band in both models is due to He i/He ii λλ4714, 4687 emission lines, while the contribution of [O iii] λλ4959, 5007 emission lines, if present, is sub-dominant. Spectroscopic observations with JWST will be required to ultimately clarify the nature of CR7.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations39
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society LettersSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207