MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379745476 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adi1405

A structured jet explains the extreme GRB 221009A

2023· article· en· W4379745476 on OpenAlexaff
Brendan O’Connor, E. Troja, Geoffrey Ryan, Paz Beniamini, Hendrik van Eerten, Jonathan Granot, S. Dichiara, R. Ricci, V. Lipunov, J. H. Gillanders, Ramandeep Gill, M. J. Moss, Shreya Anand, Igor Andreoni, R. L. Becerra, D. A. H. Buckley, N. Butler, S. B. Cenko, A. Chasovnikov, J. M. Durbak, C. Francile, Erica Hammerstein, A. J. van der Horst, M. M. Kasliwal, C. Kouveliotou, A. Kutyrev, William H. Lee, Gokul P. Srinivasaragavan, V. Topolev, A. M. Watson, Yu-Han Yang, K. Zhirkov

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsAfterglowGamma-ray burstPhysicsAstrophysicsJet (fluid)BrightnessCOSMIC cancer databaseStarsEvent (particle physics)AstronomyPower lawEnergy (signal processing)Mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-duration gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are powerful cosmic explosions, signaling the death of massive stars. Among them, GRB 221009A is by far the brightest burst ever observed. Because of its enormous energy ( E iso ≈ 10 55 erg) and proximity ( z ≈ 0.15), GRB 221009A is an exceptionally rare event that pushes the limits of our theories. We present multiwavelength observations covering the first 3 months of its afterglow evolution. The x-ray brightness decays as a power law with slope ≈ t −1.66 , which is not consistent with standard predictions for jetted emission. We attribute this behavior to a shallow energy profile of the relativistic jet. A similar trend is observed in other energetic GRBs, suggesting that the most extreme explosions may be powered by structured jets launched by a common central engine.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations104
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207