MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gamma-ray burst engine activity within the quark nova scenario: prompt emission, X-ray plateau and sharp drop-off

2008· article· en· W2008794223 on OpenAlexaff
Jan E. Staff, Brian Niebergal, Rachid Ouyed

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGamma-ray burstAfterglowAstrophysicsNeutron starAccretion (finance)OutflowMagnetarPlateau (mathematics)Drop (telecommunication)Astronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extending the three-stage model for long GRB inner engines suggested by Staff, Ouyed & Bagchi, we interpret recent Swift satellite observations of early X-ray afterglow plateaus followed by a sharp drop-off or a shallow power-law decay. The three stages involve a neutron star phase, a quark star (QS) and a black hole phase. We find that the QS stage allows for more energy to be extracted from neutron star to QS conversion as well as from ensuing accretion on to the QS. The QS accretion phase naturally extends the engine activity and can account for both the prompt emission and irregular early X-ray afterglow activity. Following the accretion phase, the QS can spin down by emission of a baryon-free outflow. The magnetar-like magnetic field strengths resulting from the NS to QS transition provide enough spin-down energy, for the correct amount of time, to account for the plateau in the X-ray afterglow. In our model, a sharp drop-off following the plateau occurs when the QS collapses to a BH during the spin-down, thus shutting off the secondary outflow. We applied our model to GRB 070110 and GRB 060607A and found that we can consistently account for the energetics and duration during the prompt and plateau phases.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207