Bibliographic record
Abstract
A quark-nova is a hypothetical stellar evolution branch where a neutron star converts explosively into a quark star. Here, we discuss the intimate coupling between the micro-physics and macro-physics of the quark-nova and provide a prescription for how to couple the Burn-UD code to the stellar evolution code in order to simulate neutron-star-to-quark-star burning at stellar scales and estimate the resulting energy release and ejecta. Once formed, the thermal evolution of the proto-quark star follows. We found much higher peak neutrino luminosities (>1055 erg/s) and a higher energy neutrino (i.e., harder) spectrum than previous stellar evolution studies of proto-neutron stars. We derived the neutrino counts that observatories such as Super-Kamiokande-III and Halo-II should expect and suggest how these can differentiate between a supernova and a quark-nova. Due to the high peak neutrino luminosities, neutrino pair annihilation can deposit as much as 1052 ergs in kinetic energy in the matter overlaying the neutrinosphere, yielding relativistic quark-nova ejecta. We show how the quark-nova could help us understand many still enigmatic high-energy astrophysical transients, such as super-luminous supernovae, gamma-ray bursts and fast radio bursts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".