MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283729268 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c10

Investigating the Origin of X-Ray Jets: A Case Study of Four Hybrid Morphology MOJAVE Blazars

2022· article· en· W4283729268 on OpenAlexaff
Biny Sebastian, Preeti Kharb, M. L. Lister, Herman L. Marshall, C. P. O’Dea, Stefi A. Baum

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlazarPhysicsAstrophysicsJet (fluid)SynchrotronSpectral energy distributionAstronomyGalaxyGamma rayOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We carried out Chandra, Hubble Space Telescope (HST), and Very Large Array observations of four MOJAVE blazars that have previously been classified as hybrid (FR I/II) blazars in terms of radio morphology but not total radio power. The motivation of this study is to determine the X-ray emission mechanism in jets, these being different in FR I and FR II jets. We detected X-ray jet emission with sufficient signal to noise in two blazars, viz. PKS 0215+015 and TXS 0730+504. We carried out spectral energy distribution modeling of the broadband emission from the jet regions in these sources and found that a single synchrotron emission model is ruled out due to the deep upper limits obtained from HST optical and IR data. The inverse Compton-cosmic microwave background model can reproduce the X-ray jet emission in both sources although the model requires extreme jet parameters. Both our sources possess FR II-like radio powers and our results are consistent with previous studies suggesting that radio power is more important than FR morphology in determining the emission mechanism of X-ray jets.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena→French-language works237,207→