Quark-nova compact remnants: Observational signatures in astronomical\n data and implications to compact stars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quark-novae leave behind quark stars with a surrounding metal-rich fall-back\n(ring-like) material. These compact remnants have high magnetic fields and are\nmisconstrued as magnetars; however, several observational features allow us to\ndistinguish a quark star (left behind by a quark-nova) from a neutron star with\nhigh magnetic field. In our model, bursting activity is expected from\nintermittent accretion events from the surrounding fall-back debris leading to\nX-ray bursts (in the case of a Keplerian ring) or gamma ray bursts (in the case\nof a co-rotating shell). The details of the spectra are described by a constant\nbackground X-ray luminosity from the expulsion of magnetic flux tubes which\nwill be temporarily buried by bursting events caused by accretion of material\nonto the quark star surface. These accretion events emit high energy photons\nand heat up the quark star and surrounding debris leading to hot spots which\nmay be observable as distinct blackbodies. Additionally, we explain observed\nspectral line features as atomic lines from r-process material and explain an\nobserved anti-glitch in an AXP as the transfer of angular momentum from a\nsurrounding Keplerian disk to the quark star.\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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".