MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110906056 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/693/2/1484

DARK BURSTS IN THE<i>SWIFT</i>ERA: THE PALOMAR 60 INCH-<i>SWIFT</i>EARLY OPTICAL AFTERGLOW CATALOG

2009· article· en· W2110906056 on OpenAlexaff
S. B. Cenko, J. Kelemen, Fiona Harrison, D. B. Fox, S. R. Kulkarni, M. M. Kasliwal, E. O. Ofek, A. Rau, A. Gal‐Yam, D. A. Frail, Dae‐Sik Moon

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersU.S. Naval ObservatoryUniversity of LeicesterCalifornia Institute of TechnologyGordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSwiftAfterglowGamma-ray burstAstrophysicsPhysicsPhotometry (optics)Optical telescopeTelescopeGalaxyAstronomyExtinction (optical mineralogy)StarsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present multicolor optical observations of long-duration γ-ray bursts (GRBs) made over a three-year period with the robotic Palomar 60 inch telescope (P60). Our sample consists of all 29 events discovered by Swift for which P60 began observations less than 1 hr after the burst trigger. We were able to recover 80% of the optical afterglows from this prompt sample, and we attribute this high efficiency to our red coverage. Like Melandri et al. (2008), we find that a significant fraction (≈50%) of Swift events show a suppression of the optical flux with regard to the X-ray emission (the so-called "dark" bursts). Our multicolor photometry demonstrates this is likely due in large part to extinction in the host galaxy. We argue that previous studies, by selecting only the brightest and best-sampled optical afterglows, have significantly underestimated the amount of dust present in typical GRB environments.&#13;\n

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations122
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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