M. Young et al. 2009 ApJS 185 250 doi:10.1088/0067-0049/185/1/250
M. Young1,2, M. Elvis1 and G. Risaliti1,3
Show affiliationsThis is an Erratum for the article 2009 ApJS 183 17
We have discovered an error in Column 9 of Table 2 in the original paper. This column reports the fit flags, indicating which model a source prefers: a simple power-law (SPL; flag = 1), a fixed power-law plus intrinsic absorption (FPL; flag = 2), or an absorbed power-law (APL; flag = 3). The table of the original paper mistakenly reports all flag = 3 sources as having flag = 2, and all flag = 2 sources as having flag = 1, so that only 32 sources prefer an absorption model.
We have updated Table 2 to print out the correct fit flags for each source, resulting in 55 sources that prefer an absorption model. Since the fit flags determine which numbers are reported for the remaining columns of Table 2, these numbers are updated as well. The abstract and text of the original paper report the correct number of absorbed sources, so the conclusions are unaffected.
In addition, a minor rounding error was found in the SDSS names of some objects, and so we replace both Tables 1 and 2 with corrected versions.
Issue 1 (2009 November)
Published 2009 November 3
M. Young et al. 2009 ApJS 185 250
O. Berné et al 2009 ApJ 706 L160
G S K Wong and L Wu 1999 Metrologia 36 275
H R Simonsen et al 2000 Metrologia 37 709
Yi-Jehng Kuan et al. 2003 ApJ 593 848
J. P. Naiman et al 2009 ApJ 705 L153
Xing Zhong Li et al 2003 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 36 3095
Aldo M. Serenelli et al 2009 ApJ 705 L123
D R White 2001 Metrologia 38 63
K. M. Dasyra et al. 2006 ApJ 638 745