MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ultra-high energy cosmic rays from Quark Novae

2003· preprint· en· W6948061802 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2003
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCosmic rayPulsarUltra-high-energy cosmic rayNeutron starSupernovaParticle acceleration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore acceleration of ions in the Quark Nova (QN) scenario, where a neutron star experiences an explosive phase transition into a quark star (born in the propeller regime). In this picture, two cosmic ray components are isolated: one related to the randomized pulsar wind and the other to the propelled wind, both boosted by the ultra-relativistic Quark Nova shock. The latter component acquires energies $10^{15} {\rm eV} 10^{18.6}$ eV. The composition is dominated by ions present in the pulsar wind in the energy range above $10^{18.6}$ eV, while at energies below $10^{18}$ eV the propelled ejecta, consisting of the fall-back neutron star crust material from the explosion, is the dominant one. Added to these two components, the propeller injects relativistic particles with Lorentz factors $Γ_{\rm prop.} \sim 1-1000$, later to be accelerated by galactic supernova shocks. The QN model appears to be able to account for the extragalactic cosmic rays above the ankle and to contribute a few percent of the galactic cosmic rays below the ankle. We predict few hundred ultra-high energy cosmic ray events above $10^{19}$ eV for the Pierre Auger detector per distant QN, while some thousands are predicted for the proposed EUSO and OWL detectors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.008

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.174 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomyFrench-language works237,207