MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765686116 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8ede

A Deep Chandra X-Ray Study of Neutron Star Coalescence GW170817

2017· article· en· W2765686116 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutron starGamma-ray burstAfterglowGalaxyPoint sourceGravitational waveCoalescence (physics)Observatory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We report Chandra observations of GW170817, the first neutron star–neutron star merger discovered by the joint LIGO-Virgo Collaboration, and the first direct detection of gravitational radiation associated with an electromagnetic counterpart, Fermi short γ -ray burst GRB 170817A. The event occurred on 2017 August 17 and subsequent observations identified an optical counterpart, SSS17a, coincident with NGC 4993 (∼10″ separation). Early Chandra ( days) and Swift ( days) observations yielded non-detections at the optical position, but ∼9 days post-trigger Chandra monitoring revealed an X-ray point source coincident with SSS17a. We present two deep Chandra observations totaling ∼95 ks, collected on 2017 September 01–02 ( days). We detect X-ray emission from SSS17a with erg s −1 , and a power law spectrum of . We find that the X-ray light curve from a binary NS coalescence associated with this source is consistent with the afterglow from an off-axis short γ -ray burst, with a jet angled ≳23° from the line of sight. This event marks both the first electromagnetic counterpart to a LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave source and the first identification of an off-axis short GRB. We also confirm extended X-ray emission from NGC 4993 ( erg s −1 ) consistent with its E/S0 galaxy classification, and report two new Chandra point sources in this field, CXOU J130948 and CXOU J130946.

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)0.000
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 score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations224
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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