MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quark-nova remnants: application to RRATs

2009· article· en· W1992490271 on OpenAlexaff
Rachid Ouyed, D. A. Leahy, Brian Niebergal

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsEjectaAstrophysicsAccretion (finance)TorusDegenerate energy levelsSupernova

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the third paper of a series of papers where we explore the evolution of iron-rich ejecta from quark-novae. In the first paper, we explored the case where a quark-nova ejecta forms a degenerate shell, supported by the star's magnetic field, with applications to SGRs. In the second paper, we considered the case where the ejecta would have sufficient angular momentum to form a degenerate Keplerian torus and applied such a system to two AXPs, namely 1E2259+586 and 4U0142+615. Here, we explore the late evolution of the degenerate torus and find that it can remain unchanged for ∼106 yr before it becomes non-degenerate. This transition from a degenerate torus (accretion-dominated) to a non-degenerate disc (no accretion) occurs about 106 yr following the quark-nova, and exhibits features that are reminiscent of observed properties of Rotation RAdio Transients (RRATs). Using this model, we can account for the duration of both the radio bursts and the quiet phase, as well as the observed radio flux from RRATs. We discuss a connection between XDINs and RRATs and argue that some XDINs may be ‘dead RRATs’ that have already consumed their non-degenerate disc.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207