Bibliographic record
Abstract
A panorama of the current historiography on the Supernova of 1054 is outlined. Shklovsky (1968) [1], and Murdin (1985) [2] show how the interpretation of this phenomenon converged on a Su-pernova event. Here we reconsider the historical data, assuming a Gamma-Ray Burst (GRB) as its source. A Supernova correlated with the GRB explains well the fading time observed by the an-cient Chinese astronomers, in daytime and in night time, while the GRB power-law explains the present X-rays and GeV emission of the Crab. On the ground of recent understanding of the first episode of binary driven Hypernova GRB (BDHN GRB) in terms of the collapse of a ten solar masses core, we propose the possible identification of the real Supernova event at earlier time than Chinese chronicles. This work allows a new understanding of the significance of historical astronomical observations, including a fireball, due to gamma-rays air shower observation, and a plague of acute radiation syndrome, documented with several thousands of victims in the Eura-sian area (Egypt, Iraq and Siria).
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".