MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1749142208 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077426

Quark-nova remnants

2007· article· en· W1749142208 on OpenAlexafffund
Rachid Ouyed, D. A. Leahy, Brian Niebergal

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsTorusAstrophysicsEjectaLuminosityAngular momentumDegenerate energy levelsNova (rocket)SupernovaAstronomyClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the first paper of this series we explored the case where a quark-nova ejecta forms a degenerate shell, supported by the star's magnetic field. Herein, we consider the case where the ejecta has sufficient angular momentum to form a torus, and we show that the density and temperature of the torus are such that it will remain degenerate throughout it's lifetime. We go on to discuss the evolution of such a torus and apply it to AXPs, specifically 1E2259+586 and 4U0142+615. As it turns out, using our model we can account for many of the observations of these objects including the quiescent phase luminosity, and blackbody temperatures during both quiescence and bursting. Furthermore, for 1E2259+586 our model explains the steep and slow decay components seen in the burst lightcurve, as well as the rotation period glitches and enhanced spin-down rate. We also estimate the mass of the degenerate torus to be of the order of , and speculate that the observed optical/infrared emission from 4U0142+615 might be a signature of the thin degenerate torus we describe here.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207