MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141774721 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/2/1575

QUARK-NOVAE, COSMIC REIONIZATION, AND EARLY<i>r</i>-PROCESS ELEMENT PRODUCTION

2009· article· en· W2141774721 on OpenAlexaff
Rachid Ouyed, Ralph E. Pudritz, Prashanth Jaikumar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsReionizationAstrophysicsSupernovaStarsEjectaMetallicityRedshiftInitial mass functionAstronomyNucleosynthesisUniverseGalaxyStar formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the case for quark-novae (QNe) as possible sources for the reionization and early metal enrichment of the universe. QNe are predicted to arise from the explosive collapse (and conversion) of sufficiently massive neutron stars into quark stars (QSs). A QN can occur over a range of timescales following the supernova (SN) event. For QNe that arise days to weeks after the SNe, we show that dual shock that arises as the QN ejecta encounter the SN ejecta can produce enough photons to reionize hydrogen in most of the intergalactic medium (IGM) by z ∼ 6. Such events can explain the large optical depth τ e ∼ 0.1 as measured by WMAP , if the clumping factor, C , of the material being ionized is smaller than 10. We suggest a way in which a normal initial mass function for the oldest stars can be reconciled with a large optical depth as well as the mean metallicity of the early IGM post reionization. We find that QN also make a contribution to r -process element abundances for atomic numbers A ⩾ 130. We predict that the main cosmological signatures of QNe are the gamma-ray bursts that announce their birth. These will be clustered at redshifts in the range z ∼ 7–8 in our model.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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