MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956022802 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2646

The Mass Function of Supermassive Black Holes in the Direct-collapse Scenario

2019· article· en· W2956022802 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSupermassive black holeDimensionless quantityQuasarAccretion (finance)Power lawBlack hole (networking)Accretion discLuminosity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One of the ideas that explains the existence of supermassive black holes (SMBHs) that are in place by z ∼ 7 is that there was an earlier phase of very rapid accretion onto direct-collapse black holes (DCBHs) that started their lives with masses ∼104–5 . Working in this scenario, we show that the mass function of SMBHs after such a limited time period, with growing formation rate paired with super-Eddington accretion, can be described as a broken power law with two characteristic features. There is a power law at intermediate masses whose index is the dimensionless ratio α ≡ λ/γ, where λ is the growth rate of the number of DCBHs during their formation era, and γ is the growth rate of DCBH masses by super-Eddington accretion during the DCBH growth era. A second feature is a break in the power-law profile at high masses, above which the mass function declines rapidly. The location of the break is related to the dimensionless number β = γ T, where T is the duration of the period of DCBH growth. If the SMBHs continue to grow at later times at an Eddington-limited accretion rate, then the observed quasar luminosity function can be directly related to the tapered power-law function derived in this Letter.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207