MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415303463 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf844

Morphology of 35 Repeating Fast Radio Burst Sources at Microsecond Time Scales with CHIME/FRB

2025· article· en· W4415303463 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Alice P. Curtin, Ketan R. Sand, Ziggy Pleunis, Naman Jain, V. M. Kaspi, Daniele Michilli, Emmanuel Fonseca, Kaitlyn Shin, Kenzie Nimmo, Charanjot Brar, Fengqiu Adam Dong, Gwendolyn M. Eadie, B. M. Gaensler, Antonio Herrera-Martín, Adaeze L. Ibik, Ronniy C. Joseph, Jane Kaczmarek, Calvin Leung, Robert Main, Kiyoshi W. Masui, Ryan Mckinven, Juan Mena-Parra, Cherry Ng, Ayush Pandhi, Aaron B. Pearlman, Masoud Rafiei-Ravandi, Mawson W. Sammons, Paul Scholz, Kendrick M. Smith, I. H. Stairs

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSmithsonian Astrophysical ObservatoryUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMicrosecondScatteringDispersion (optics)Temporal resolutionMeasure (data warehouse)Spectral shape analysisIntensity (physics)Spectral line

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment Fast Radio Burst (CHIME/FRB) project has discovered the most repeating FRB sources of any telescope. However, most of the physical conclusions derived from this sample are based on data with a time resolution of ∼1 ms. In this work, we present for the first time a morphological analysis of the raw voltage data for 124 bursts from 35 of CHIME/FRB's repeating sources. We do not find any significant correlations among fluence, dispersion measure (DM), burst rate, and burst duration. Performing the first large-scale morphological comparison at timescales down to microseconds between our repeating sources and 125 nonrepeating FRBs, we find that repeaters are narrower in frequency and broader in duration than nonrepeaters, supporting previous findings. However, we find that the duration-normalized sub-burst widths of the two populations are consistent, possibly suggesting a shared physical emission mechanism. Additionally, we find that the spectral fluences of the two are consistent. When combined with the larger bandwidths and previously found larger DMs of nonrepeaters, this suggests that nonrepeaters may have higher intrinsic specific energies than repeating FRBs. We do not find any consistent increase or decrease in the DM (⪅1 pc cm −3 yr −1 ) and scattering timescales (⪅2 ms yr −1 ) of our sources over ∼2–4 yr periods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→