MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028282243 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/744/1/36

COASTING EXTERNAL SHOCK IN WIND MEDIUM: AN ORIGIN FOR THE X-RAY PLATEAU DECAY COMPONENT IN<i>SWIFT</i>GAMMA-RAY BURST AFTERGLOWS

2011· article· en· W2028282243 on OpenAlexaff
Rong-Feng Shen, Christopher D. Matzner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEjectaPhysicsAstrophysicsGamma-ray burstPlateau (mathematics)Adiabatic processStarsShock (circulatory)Lorentz factorLight curveJet (fluid)AstronomySupernovaMechanicsLorentz transformation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The plateaus observed in about one half of the early X-ray afterglows are the most puzzling feature in gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) detected by Swift . By analyzing the temporal and spectral indices of a large X-ray plateau sample, we find that 55% can be explained by external, forward shock synchrotron emission produced by a relativistic ejecta coasting in a ρ∝ r −2 , wind-like medium; no energy injection into the shock is needed. After the ejecta collects enough medium and transitions to the adiabatic, decelerating blast wave phase, it produces the post-plateau decay. For those bursts consistent with this model, we find an upper limit for the initial Lorentz factor of the ejecta, Γ 0 ⩽ 46( e /0.1) −0.24 ( B /0.01) 0.17 ; the isotropic equivalent total ejecta energy is E iso ∼ 10 53 ( e /0.1) −1.3 ( B /0.01) −0.09 ( t b /10 4 s) erg, where e and B are the fractions of the total energy at the shock downstream that are carried by electrons and the magnetic field, respectively, and t b is the end of the plateau. Our finding supports Wolf–Rayet stars as the progenitor stars of some GRBs. It raises intriguing questions about the origin of an intermediate-Γ 0 ejecta, which we speculate is connected to the GRB jet emergence from its host star. For the remaining 45% of the sample, the post-plateau decline is too rapid to be explained in the coasting-in-wind model, and energy injection appears to be required.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207