Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 511

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Relativistic ejecta from X-ray flash XRF 060218 and the rate of cosmic explosions

Open access
Soderberg, A. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Nakar, E., Berger, E., Cameron, P. B., Fox, D. B., Frail, D., Gal-Yam, A., Sari, R., Cenko, S. B., Kasliwal, M., Chevalier, R. A., Piran, T., Price, P. A., Schmidt, B. P., Pooley, G., Moon, D.-S., Penprase, B. E., Ofek, E., Rau, A., Gehrels, N., Nousek, J. A., Burrows, D. N., Persson, S. E., McCarthy, P. J.·2006·Nature

Abstract

Over the past decade, long-duration γ-ray bursts (GRBs)—including the subclass of X-ray flashes (XRFs)—have been revealed to be a rare variety of type Ibc supernova. Although all these events result from the death of massive stars, the electromagnetic luminosities of GRBs and XRFs exceed those of ordinary type Ibc supernovae by many orders of magnitude. The essential physical process that causes a dying star to produce a GRB or XRF, and not just a supernova, is still unknown. Here we report radio and X-ray observations of XRF 060218 (associated with supernova SN 2006aj), the second-nearest GRB identified until now. We show that this event is a hundred times less energetic but ten times more common than cosmological GRBs. Moreover, it is distinguished from ordinary type Ibc supernovae by the presence of 1048 erg coupled to mildly relativistic ejecta, along with a central engine (an accretion-fed, rapidly rotating compact source) that produces X-rays for weeks after the explosion. This suggests that the production of relativistic ejecta is the key physical distinction between GRBs or XRFs and ordinary supernovae, while the nature of the central engine (black hole or magnetar) may distinguish typical bursts from low-luminosity, spherical events like XRF 060218.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature05087

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Cited by

See all 511

Metadata

Authors
Soderberg, A. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Nakar, E., Berger, E., Cameron, P. B., Fox, D. B., Frail, D., Gal-Yam, A., Sari, R., Cenko, S. B., Kasliwal, M., Chevalier, R. A., Piran, T., Price, P. A., Schmidt, B. P., Pooley, G., Moon, D.-S., Penprase, B. E., Ofek, E., Rau, A., Gehrels, N., Nousek, J. A., Burrows, D. N., Persson, S. E., & McCarthy, P. J.
Venue
Nature
Published
2006-08
Volume
442
Issue
7106
Pages
1014-1017
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W1969193795
Cited by
511
References
21
FWCI
20.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Relativistic ejecta from X-ray flash XRF 060218 and the rate of cosmic explosions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/nature05087
The paper
Soderberg, A. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Nakar, E., Berger, E., Cameron, P. B., Fox, D. B., Frail, D., Gal-Yam, A., Sari, R., Cenko, S. B., Kasliwal, M., Chevalier, R. A., Piran, T., Price, P. A., Schmidt, B. P., Pooley, G., Moon, D.-S., Penprase, B. E., Ofek, E., . . . McCarthy, P. J. (2006). Relativistic ejecta from X-ray flash XRF 060218 and the rate of cosmic explosions. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05087

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.