On the age and formation mechanism of the core of the Quadrantid meteoroid stream
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Quadrantid meteor shower is among the strongest annual meteor showers, and has drawn the attention of scientists for several decades. The stream is unusual, among others, for several reasons: its very short duration around maximum activity (≈12–14 h) as detected by visual, photographic and radar observations, its recent onset (around 1835 AD Quetelet, L.A.J. [1839]. Catalogue des principles apparitions d’etoiles filantes) and because it had been the only major stream without an obvious parent body until 2003. Ever since, there have been debates as to the age of the stream and the nature of its proposed parent body, asteroid 2003 EH 1 . In this work, we present results on the most probable age and formation mechanism of the narrow portion of the Quadrantid meteoroid stream. For the first time we use data on eight high precision photographic Quadrantids, equivalent to gram–kilogram size, to constrain the most likely age of the core of the stream. Out of eight high-precision photographic Quadrantids, five pertain directly to the narrow portion of the stream. In addition, we also use data on five high-precision radar Quadrantids, observed within the peak of the shower. We performed backwards numerical integrations of the equations of motion of a large number of ‘clones’ of both, the eight high-precision photographic and five radar Quadrantid meteors, along with the proposed parent body, 2003 EH 1 . According to our results, from the backward integrations, the most likely age of the narrow structure of the Quadrantids is between 200 and 300 years. These presumed ejection epochs, corresponding to 1700–1800 AD, are then used for forward integrations of large numbers of hypothetical meteoroids, ejected from the parent 2003 EH 1 , until the present epoch. The aim is to constrain whether the core of the Quadrantid meteoroid stream is consistent with a previously proposed relatively young age (≈200 years).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".