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
Cormac Reynolds et al. 2009 ApJ 706 851
Marco Prato et al. 2009 ApJ 706 917
Youcai Zhang et al. 2009 ApJ 706 747
Chen Jia-Er et al 2009 Chinese Phys. C 33 926
I. Baraffe et al 2009 ApJ 702 L27
G. Umana et al. 2009 ApJ 694 697
Janice C. Lee et al. 2009 ApJ 706 599
M. J. Way et al. 2009 ApJ 706 623
G S Joyce and R T Delves 2004 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 37 3645