MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1649119254 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/2/179

LOCAL CIRCUMNUCLEAR MAGNETAR SOLUTION TO EXTRAGALACTIC FAST RADIO BURSTS

2015· article· en· W1649119254 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetarVery-long-baseline interferometryMilky WayGalactic CenterFlux (metallurgy)ScatteringFlare

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We synthesize the known information about fast radio bursts (FRBs) and radio magnetars, and describe an allowed origin near nuclei of external, but non-cosmological, galaxies. This places them at , within a few hundred megaparsecs. In this scenario, the high dispersion measure (DM) is dominated by the environment of the FRB, modeled on the known properties of the Milky Way center, whose innermost 100 pc provides 1000 pc cm −3 . A radio loud magnetar is known to exist in our galactic center, within ∼2 arcsec of Sgr A*. Based on the polarization, DM, and scattering properties of this known magnetar, we extrapolate its properties to those of Crab-like giant pulses and SGR flares and point out their consistency with observed FRBs. We conclude that galactic center magnetars could be the source of FRBs. This scenario is readily testable with very long baseline interferometry measurements as well as with flux count statistics from large surveys such as CHIME or UTMOST.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations100
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207