adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: The Spiderweb Protocluster is Being Magnetized by Its Central Radio Jet
Authors: Craig S. Anderson, Christopher L. Carilli, Paolo Tozzi, G. K. Miley, S. Borgani, Tracy Clarke, Luca Di Mascolo, Ang Liu, Tony Mroczkowski, Maurilio Pannella, L. Pentericci, H. J. A. Rottgering, A. Saro
Figure caption: Toy model of the western jet (black outline), indicating how an RM gradient crossing from negative RMs (blue shading) to positive RMs (red shading; similar to Figure 5) across the jet axis could arise from a toroidal magnetic field component which is clockwise when viewed from the central SMBH and accretion disk (labeled). The picture is of a nested helix configuration, with inner and outer magnetic field windings (labeled), as discussed in Section 6).
Paper: Signatures of Impact-driven Atmospheric Loss in Large Ensembles of Exoplanets
Authors: Quadry Chance, Sarah Ballard, Keivan Stassun
Figure caption: The number of giant impacts during the planet-assembly process, per star, after gas dissipation. This distribution has been multiplicity weighted. Ed10  2  planets are more likely to have suffered an atmosphere-removing impact.
Paper: Effects of Hydrogen versus Helium on Electromagnetic Black Hole Observables
Authors: George N. Wong, Charles F. Gammie
Figure caption: SED for hydrogen (solid) and helium (dashed) models of M87 and Sgr A* plotted against observational constraints. The M87 model is a MAD with a * = 0.5 and R high = 40. The Sgr A* model is a MAD with a * = 0.94 and R high = 160 at low inclination (these parameters are consistent with the best-bet models identified in Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration et al. 2022). The right panel (Sgr A*) is most representative of the average change in the SED for both sets of models. For Sgr A*, frequencies with multiple points correspond to the quiescent (lower) and flaring (higher) states. References for the observational data points can be found in Appendix B.
Paper: Total Solar Irradiance during the Last Five Centuries
Authors: Valentina Penza, Francesco Berrilli, Luca Bertello, Matteo Cantoresi, Serena Criscuoli, Piermarco Giobbi
Figure caption: Relationship between the parameters Td  k  and Ts  k  for plage (left) and sunspot (right) areas. The sunspot data include the additional cycles 12 and 13. The filled circles, with 1σ error bars, show the data averaged over the individual solar cycle numbers. The regression lines, computed using a Bayesian method (Kelly 2007), are given by Equation (2).
Paper: Total Solar Irradiance during the Last Five Centuries
Authors: Valentina Penza, Francesco Berrilli, Luca Bertello, Matteo Cantoresi, Serena Criscuoli, Piermarco Giobbi
Figure caption: Upper panel: parametric reconstruction of the plage coverage (blue line) with confidence range (gray). The plage composite from the MPI is shown for comparison (red line). Lower panel: parametric reconstruction of the sunspot coverage (blue line) with confidence range (gray). The reduction in the confidence range before 1940 is due to the lower sunspot number, which makes it no longer appreciable. The sunspot composite from MPI is shown for comparison (red line).
Paper: Total Solar Irradiance during the Last Five Centuries
Authors: Valentina Penza, Francesco Berrilli, Luca Bertello, Matteo Cantoresi, Serena Criscuoli, Piermarco Giobbi
Figure caption: Correlation between sunspot parameter Ts  k  sunspot and plage parameter Ts  k  plage. The error bars are 1σ standard error of the mean for both the sunspot and plage data. The regression line, computed using a Bayesian method (Kelly 2007), is given by Equation (4).
Paper: Errors When Constraining Hot Blackbody Parameters with Optical Photometry
Authors: Iair Arcavi
Figure caption: Same as Figure 7 but but for Johnson–Cousins bands using 0.05 magnitude (left) and 0.1 magnitude (right) simulated measurement uncertainties.
Paper: Errors When Constraining Hot Blackbody Parameters with Optical Photometry
Authors: Iair Arcavi
Figure caption: Same as Figure 6 but for both methods as shown in the legend, for both SDSS and Johnson–Cousins optical bands, and various magnitude uncertainties, as shown in the titles.
Paper: Errors When Constraining Hot Blackbody Parameters with Optical Photometry
Authors: Iair Arcavi
Figure caption: Same as Figure B6 but for Johnson–Cousins bands and using simulated measurement uncertainties of 0.1 magnitudes.
Paper: Errors When Constraining Hot Blackbody Parameters with Optical Photometry
Authors: Iair Arcavi
Figure caption: Same as Figure B6 but using simulated measurement uncertainties of 0.1 magnitudes.
Paper: Errors When Constraining Hot Blackbody Parameters with Optical Photometry
Authors: Iair Arcavi
Figure caption: Same as Figure B6 but for Johnson–Cousins bands.