MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1932951172 · doi:10.1029/2011gl048277

The free librations of Mercury and the size of its inner core

2011· article· en· W1932951172 on OpenAlexaff
Mathieu Dumberry

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInner coreLibration (molecule)Mantle (geology)Outer coreCore–mantle boundaryPhysicsMercury (programming language)GeophysicsGeologyGeodesyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[1] The predicted period of the free libration of Mercury's mantle, if fully decoupled from the core, is approximately 12 yr. If the innermost part of the core is solid, this period is altered and a second free mode is possible. The period of these two modes depend on the mean solar torque acting on the elliptical figures of the mantle and inner core, and also on the gravitational torque they exert on one another. We show that one mode is well approximated by the free gravitational oscillation between the mantle and inner core that would occur in the absence of a solar torque; its period is as small as 4 yr depending on inner core size and other model parameters. The second free mode consists of an in-phase libration of the mantle and inner core. When the inner core is small, the period of this mode coincides with that of the decoupled free mantle libration of 12 yr. However, the period lengthens considerably when the inner core radius is larger than 1000 km, and can be as high as approximately 19 yr if Mercury's core is almost fully solidified. These modes should affect Mercury's libration dynamics at decadal timescale. This suggests that, in principle, constraints on the size of Mercury's inner core may be extracted from its long term libration motion, though in practice this may be difficult given data limitations.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207