Bibliographic record
Abstract
We find that the recently reported departure from the Eddington luminosity limit for the highest quasar black hole masses at a given redshift is an artifact due to biases in black hole mass measurements. This sub-Eddington boundary (with non-unity slope) in the quasar mass-luminosity plane was initially reported by Steinhardt & Elvis (2010a) using the FWHM-based black hole mass catalogue of Shen et al. (2008). However, the significance of the boundary is reduced when the FWHM-based mass-scaling relationship is recalibrated following Wang et al. (2009) and using the most updated reverberation mapping estimates of black hole masses. Furthermore, this boundary is not seen using mass estimates based on the line dispersion of the same quasars' MgII emission lines. Thus, the initial report of a sub-Eddington boundary with non-unity slope was due to biases in estimating masses using the FWHM of a fit of one or two Gaussians to quasar MgII emission lines. We provide evidence that using the line dispersion of the MgII line produces less biased black hole mass estimates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".