MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386471549 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2687

Ultraluminous quasars at high redshift show evolution in their radio-loudness fraction in both redshift and ultraviolet luminosity

2023· article· en· W4386471549 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Philip Lah, Christopher A. Onken, R. P. Norris, Francesco D’Eugenio

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilCanada Foundation for InnovationAustralian GovernmentScience and Technology Facilities CouncilUK Research and InnovationAustralian Research CouncilAstronomy Australia Limited
KeywordsQuasarPhysicsRedshiftAstrophysicsLuminosity functionLuminosityAstronomyRedshift surveyGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We take a sample of 94 ultraluminous, optical quasars from the search of over 14 486 deg2 by Onken et al. in the range 4.4 < redshift < 5.2 and match them against the Rapid ASKAP Continuum Survey (RACS) observed on the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP). From this most complete sample of the bright end of the redshift ∼5 quasar luminosity function, there are 10 radio continuum detections, of which eight are considered radio-loud quasars. The radio-loud fraction for this sample is 8.5 ± 2.9 per cent. Jiang et al. found that there is a decrease in the radio-loud fraction of quasars with increasing redshift and an increase with increasing absolute magnitude at rest frame 2500 Å. We show that the radio-loud fraction of our quasar sample is consistent with that predicted by Jiang et al.,extending their result to higher redshifts.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→