MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3105735649

Further Evidence that the Redshifts of AGN Galaxies May Contain Intrinsic Components

2013· article· en· W3105735649 on OpenAlexaff
M. B. Bell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrophysicsPhysicsQuasarRedshiftGalaxyAstronomyRadio galaxyLuminous infrared galaxyPeculiar galaxyElliptical galaxyLuminosityLenticular galaxy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model galaxies are assumed to be born as compact objects that have been ejected with large intrinsic redshift components, zi, out of the nuclei of mature AGN galaxies. As young AGN (quasars) they are initially several magnitudes sub-luminous to mature galaxies but their luminosity gradually increases over 10 8 yrs, as zi decreases and they evolve into mature AGN (Seyferts and radio galaxies). Evidence presented here that lowand intermediate-redshift AGN are unquestionably sub-luminous to radio galaxies is then strong support for this model and makes it likely that the high-redshift AGN (quasars) are also sub-luminous, having simply been pushed above the radio galaxies on a logz-mv plot by the presence of a large intrinsic component in their redshifts. In this model all young AGN detected to date are closer than ∼ 500 Mpc, so for these objects redshifts greater than 0.1 are largely intrinsic. Because radio galaxies represent the high luminosity end of the AGN evolutionary sequence they are detected to much larger distances. In the cosmological redshift (CR) model the large differences in luminosity of AGN at different epochs are very difficult to explain since these objects would have evolved through the same environmental conditions at each epoch as did the radio galaxies, and the latter are clearly good standard candles. In the DIR model AGN do not face this problem because, for a given intrinsic redshift, like the radio galaxies, they are assumed to be good standard candles.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.229
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→