Identifying quasars with astrometric and mid-infrared methods from APOP and ALLWISE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. Quasars are spatially stationary, and they are essential objects in astrometry when defining reference frames. However, the census of quasars is far from complete. Mid-infared colors can be used to find quasar candidates because active galactic nuclei (AGNs) show a peculiar appearance in mid-infrared color, but these methods are incapable of separating quasars from AGNs. Aims. The aim of our study is to use astrometric and mid-infrared methods to select quasars and get a reliable quasar candidates catalog. Methods. We used a near-zero proper motion criterion in conjuction with WISE [W1–W2] color to select quasar candidates. The [W1–W2] color criterion is defined by the linear boundary of two samples: LAMOST DR5 quasars, which serve as the quasar sample, and LAMOST DR5 stars and galaxies, which serve as the non-quasar sample. The contamination and completeness are evaluated. Results. We present a catalog of 662 753 quasar candidates, with a completeness of about 75% and a reliability of 77.2%.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".