MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101548038

Supermassive black holes and their host galaxies – ii. The correlation with near-infrared luminosity revisited

2013· article· en· W3101548038 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueePrints Soton (University of Southampton) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsSupermassive black holeAstrophysicsBulgeGalaxySpiral galaxyLuminous infrared galaxyLuminosityElliptical galaxyGalaxy formation and evolutionAstronomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an investigation of the scaling relations between Supermassive Black Hole (SMBH) masses (Mbh), and their host galaxies' K-band bulge (Lbul) and total (Ltot) luminosities. The wide-field WIRCam imager at the Canada-France-Hawaii-Telescope (CFHT) was used to obtain the deepest and highest resolution near infrared images available for a sample of 35 galaxies with securely measured Mbh, selected irrespective of Hubble type. For each galaxy, we derive bulge and total magnitudes using a two-dimensional image decomposition code that allows us to account, if necessary, for large- and small-scale disks, cores, bars, nuclei, rings, envelopes and spiral arms. We find that the present-day Mbh-Lbul and Mbh-Ltot relations have consistent intrinsic scatter, suggesting that Mbh correlates equally well with bulge and total luminosity of the host. Our analysis provides only mild evidence of a decreased scatter if the fit is restricted to elliptical galaxies. The log-slopes of the Mbh-Lbul and Mbh-Ltot relations are 0.75+/-0.10 and 0.92+/-0.14, respectively. However, while the slope of the Mbh-Lbul relation depends on the detail of the image decomposition, the characterization of Mbh-Ltot does not. Given the difficulties and ambiguities of decomposing galaxy images into separate components, our results indicate that Ltot is more suitable as a tracer of SMBH mass than Lbul, and that the Mbh-Ltot relation should be used when studying the co-evolution of SMBHs and galaxies.

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)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.160
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations37
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueePrints Soton (University of Southampton)Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207