Nondetection of CHIME/Fast Radio Burst Sources with the Arecibo Observatory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work, we present follow-up observations of two known repeating fast radio bursts (FRBs) and seven nonrepeating FRBs with complex morphology discovered with the CHIME/FRB project. These observations were conducted with the Arecibo Observatory 327 MHz receiver. We detected no additional bursts from these sources, nor did CHIME/FRB detect any additional bursts from these sources during our follow-up program. Based on these nondetections, we provide constraints on the repetition rate for all nine sources. We calculate repetition rates above 1 Jy using both a Poisson distribution of repetition and the Weibull distribution of repetition presented by Oppermann et al. For both distributions we find repetition upper limits of the order λ = 10−2–10−1 hr−1 for all sources. These rates are much lower than those published for notable repeating FRBs like FRB 20121102A and FRB 20201124A, suggesting the possibility of a low-repetition subpopulation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".