MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1864407209 · doi:10.1002/2014je004680

Optical observations of meteors generating infrasound: Weak shock theory and validation

2015· article· en· W1864407209 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Planets · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsMeteoroidBlast waveShock waveRADIUSAmplitudeShock (circulatory)Photometry (optics)Infrasound

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We have recorded a data set of 24 cm sized meteoroids detected simultaneously by video and infrasound to critically examine the ReVelle (1974) weak shock meteor infrasound model. We find that the effect of gravity wave perturbations to the wind field and updated absorption coefficients in the linear regime on the initial value of the blast radius ( R 0 ), which is the strongly nonlinear zone of shock propagation near the body and corresponds to energy deposition per path length, is relatively small (<10%). Using optical photometry for ground truth for energy deposition, we find that the ReVelle model accurately predicts blast radii from infrasound periods ( τ ) but systematically underpredicts R 0 using pressure amplitude. If the weak shock to linear propagation distortion distance is adjusted as part of the modeling process, we are able to self‐consistently fit a single blast radius value for amplitude and period. In this case, the distortion distance is always much less (usually just a few percent) than the value of 10% assumed in the ReVelle model. Our study shows that fragmentation is an important process even for centimeter‐sized meteoroids, implying that R 0 , while a good measure of energy deposition by the meteoroid, is not a reliable means of obtaining the meteoroid mass. We derived an empirical period‐blast radius relation of the form R 0 = 15.4 τ − 0.5 ( τ ≤ 0.7 s) and R 0 = 29.1 τ − 11.6 ( τ > 0.7 s) appropriate to centimeter‐sized meteoroids. Our observations suggest that meteors having blast radii as small as 1 m are detectable infrasonically at the ground, an order of magnitude smaller than previously considered.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research PlanetsSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207