Asteroid (354) Eleonora: Plucking an Odd Duck
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
During a survey of the S-type asteroids, Gaffey et al. (Gaffey, M.J., Bell, J.F., Brown, R.H., Burbine, T.H., Piatek, J., Reed, K.L., Chaky, D.A. [1993]. Icarus 106, 573–602) identified Asteroid (354) Eleonora as anomalous with a 1 μm absorption feature ∼2.5 times stronger than any S-asteroid of comparable size. Subsequent investigation revealed significant differences in the 1 μm absorption feature between the visible & very near-infrared CCD spectra (λ < ∼1.0 μm) and other spectral data sets for this asteroid. There were also significant spectral differences among the several CCD survey spectra (SMASS-I, SMASS-II & S3OS2) of Eleonora. These differences could potentially arise from spectral variations across the asteroid surface, from observational phase angle differences, from surface temperature differences, from viewing geometry for a nonspherical body, or from the use of standard stars with deviated to different degrees from a true solar standard. In June 2011 Asteroid (354) Eleonora was observed over two nights using the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF) at Mauna Kea Observatory in order to test these possible scenarios and to better understand the nature and history of Eleonora and its relationships to other asteroids and to the meteorites. Analysis of this data set has eliminated the following options as the cause of the differences in the 1 μm absorption feature within the CCD data sets and between the CCD data sets and the other spectral data: (1) rotational spectral variations; (2) variation in surface composition with latitude; (3) observation phase; (4) surface temperature variations with differing heliocentric distance in the asteroid’s elliptical orbit; (5) spectral effects of viewing geometry for a nonspherical body; and (6) differences in spectral standard stars. We conclude that none of the CCD spectra of (354) Eleonora are reliable, and that within the limits of their spectral coverage, analyses of the three CCD spectra would produce significantly different – and generally unreliable – indications of surface mineralogy. An effort needs to be made to determine whether “bad” CCD spectra are rare with the case of (354) Eleonora being an uncommon occurrence or whether there is a broader problem with the CCD asteroid survey data sets, and if so, how to identify the “bad” spectra. While CCD survey spectra show apparently irreconcilable differences, the near-infrared spectra of (354) Eleonora from various observers show only minor differences, primarily in the overall spectral slope, most of which can be attributed to slight differences in the standard stars used to calibrate the data. In June 2011, 226 near-infrared (∼0.76–2.5 μm) spectra of (354) Eleonora were obtained using the SpeX instrument on the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility at Mauna Kea Observatory. These spectra were consistent with the six sets of NIR spectra obtained for Eleonora by previous observers. The primary variation observed in this new data set was an approximately 10% variation in spectral slope between ∼0.8 μm and ∼1.6 μm during the rotation period of the asteroid. Mineralogically diagnostic spectral parameters extracted from this new data are most consistent with a surface assemblage of fine-grained intimately mixed olivine (∼60–70%, ∼Fo61–71) and low nickel (
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».