The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Implications of the Radio Afterglow from the Gamma‐Ray Burst of 1997 May 8
Open accessAbstract
Radio observations of the afterglow of the γ-ray burst GRB 970508 provide unique new constraints on afterglow models. The quenching of diffractive scintillation at ~4 weeks delay provides the first direct estimate of source size and expansion rate. It implies an apparent size R ~ 10 17 cm and an expansion at a speed comparable to that of light at t ~ 4 weeks, in agreement with the fireball model prediction, R = 10 17 ( t /week) 5/8 cm. The radio flux and its dependence on time and frequency at 1-5 weeks delay are in agreement with the model and imply a fireball energy (assuming spherical symmetry) ~10 52 ergs, consistent with the value inferred from observations at shorter delay. The observed radio behavior deviates from model predictions at delays greater than 5 weeks. This is expected, since at this delay the fireball is in transition from highly relativistic to subrelativistic expansion, with Lorentz factor γ ≤ 2. Deviation may result from a change in the physical processes associated with the shock wave as it becomes subrelativistic (e.g., a decrease in the fraction of energy carried by the magnetic field) or from the fireball being a cone of opening angle ~ 1/γ ~ . We predict the future behavior of the radio flux assuming that the latter interpretation is valid. These predictions may be tested by radio observations in the frequency range 0.1-10 GHz on a timescale of months.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The formation of a blast wave by a very intense explosion I. Theoretical discussion
Taylor, G. I. (1950) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspa.1950.0049 · Cited by 1,378
Cited by
Zhang, B., Fan, Y. Z., Dyks, J., Kobayashi, S., Meszaros, P., Burrows, D. N., Nousek, J. A., & Gehrels, N. (2006) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/500723 · Cited by 1,079
“;X contrast is expected. spectrum (e.g., Baring &Harding 1997; Lithwick & Sari 2001), the reverse shock data (Sari & Piran 1999; Wang et al. 2000; Zhang et al. 2003), and the superluminal expansion of the radio afterglow source image (Waxman et al. 1998).”
BackgroundHigh energy neutrinos from astrophysical sources: An upper bound
Waxman, E., & Bahcall, J. (1998) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.023002 · Cited by 852
Self-citationThe Dynamics and Light Curves of Beamed Gamma‐Ray Burst Afterglows
Rhoads, J. E. (1999) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/307907 · Cited by 787
GAMMA-RAY BURSTS: PROGRESS, PROBLEMS & PROSPECTS
ZHANG, B., & MÉSZÁROS, P. (2004) · International Journal of Modern Physics A · doi:10.1142/s0217751x0401746x · Cited by 783
Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Swift Era
Gehrels, N., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Fox, D. B. (2009) · Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145147 · Cited by 615
Metadata
- Authors
- Waxman, E., Kulkarni, S. R., & Frail, D. A.
- Venue
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 1998-04-10
- Volume
- 497
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 288-293
- ISSN
- 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4357
- OpenAlex
- W2018902878
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Implications of the Radio Afterglow from the Gamma‐Ray Burst of 1997 May 8. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/305467
- The paper
- Waxman, E., Kulkarni, S. R., & Frail, D. A. (1998). Implications of the Radio Afterglow from the Gamma‐Ray Burst of 1997 May 8. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1086/305467
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.