MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367841788 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1327

An <i>XMM–Newton</i> study of six narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies at <i>z</i>  = 0.35–0.92

2023· article· en· W4367841788 on OpenAlexaff
Zhibo Yu, Jiachen Jiang, Cosimo Bambi, Luigi Gallo, D. Grupe, A. C. Fabian, C. S. Reynolds, W. N. Brandt

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersIsaac Newton TrustLeverhulme Trust
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyLine (geometry)AstronomyLuminous infrared galaxyActive galactic nucleusGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We report a detailed analysis of the XMM–Newton spectra of six narrow-line Seyfert 1 (NLS1) galaxies at redshift z = 0.35–0.92. Compared with the NLS1s at lower redshift in the previously most-studied sample, these NLS1s have larger black hole (BH) masses ($\log \, M_\mathrm{BH}\gt 7.5$ ) with similar or even lower Eddington ratios. Our extended XMM–Newton sample of NLS1s shows strong soft X-ray excess emission below 2 keV. The quantified soft excess strength does not show an obvious discrepancy from previous studies of the lower redshift NLS1s. The systematic effect in the measurement of the Eddington ratio mainly lies in the bolometric correction factor. We also tentatively fit the spectra assuming two more physical models for the soft excess: warm Comptonization and relativistic reflection from the inner accretion disc. In the first scenario, we confirm the ubiquity of a warm and optically thick corona. The behaviour of a single source can be better explained by relativistic reflection, although we cannot distinguish which model is a more favourable explanation for the soft excess based on the best-fitting statistics.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207