MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2264947362 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/1/59

RADIO NONDETECTION OF THE SGR 1806−20 GIANT FLARE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FAST RADIO BURSTS

2016· article· en· W2264947362 on OpenAlexaff
Shriharsh P. Tendulkar, V. M. Kaspi, C. Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetarAstrophysicsPhysicsFlareRadio telescopeFast radio burstAstronomyFluenceNeutron starOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We analyze archival data from the Parkes radio telescope, which was observing a location 35.°6 away from SGR 1806−20 during its giant γ-ray flare of 2004 December 27. We show that no fast radio burst (FRB)-like burst counterpart was detected, and set a radio limit of 110 MJy at 1.4 GHz, including the estimated 70 dB suppression of the signal due to its location in the far sidelobe of Parkes and the predicted scattering from the interstellar medium. The upper limit for the ratio of magnetar giant flare radio to γ-ray fluence is η SGR ≲ 107 Jy ms erg−1 cm2. Based on the nondetection of a short and prompt γ-ray counterpart of 15 FRBs in γ-ray transient monitors, we set a lower limit on the fluence ratios of FRBs to be η FRB ≳ 107–9 Jy ms erg−1 cm2. The fluence ratio limit for SGR 1806−20 is inconsistent with all but one of the 15 FRBs. We discuss possible variations in the magnetar-FRB emission mechanism and observational caveats that may reconcile the theory with observations.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations98
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207