MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7035024202

XMMâNewton surveys of the CanadaâFrance Redshift Survey Fields â III. The environments of X-ray selected active galactic nuclei at 0.4 < z < 0.6

2017· other· en· W7035024202 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuereroDoc Digital Library · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive galactic nucleusRedshiftLuminosityGalaxyRedshift surveyUniverseQuasarAccretion (finance)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The environmental properties of a sample of 31 hard X-ray selected active galactic nuclei (AGN) are investigated, from scales of 500 kpc down to 30 kpc, and are compared to a control sample of inactive galaxies. All the AGN lie in the redshift range 0.4 < z < 0.6. The accretion luminosity density of the Universe peaks close to this redshift range, and the AGN in the sample have X-ray luminosities close to the knee in the hard X-ray luminosity function, making them representative of the population that dominated this important phase of energy conversion. Using both the spatial clustering amplitude and near-neighbour counts, it is found that the AGN have environments that are indistinguishable from normal, inactive galaxies over the same redshift range and with similar optical properties. Typically, the environments are of subcluster richness, in contrast to similar studies of high-z quasars, which are often found in clusters with comparable richness to the Abell R≥ 0 clusters. It is suggested that minor mergers with low-mass companions are a likely candidate for the mechanism by which these modest luminosity AGN are fuelled

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.005

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuereroDoc Digital LibrarySame topicSolar Radiation and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207