MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A meteoroid stream survey using the Canadian Meteor Orbit Radar - III. Mass distribution indices of six major meteor showers

2011· article· en· W1956835734 on OpenAlex
R. Blaauw, M. Campbell‐Brown, R. Weryk

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeteor (satellite)MeteoroidLongitudePhysicsOrbit determinationOrbit (dynamics)Mass distributionAstronomyAstrophysicsLatitudeSatellite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mass distribution index of the Geminid, Quadrantid, Arietid, Eta Aquariid, Orionid and South Delta Aquariid meteor showers have been measured using data from 2007 to 2010 from the Canadian Meteor Orbit Radar (CMOR). Single-station data from the 29.85-MHz system were used to find mass index as a function of solar longitude, and to compare separate years of showers. The variation in mass index with solar longitude can provide information on the structure of the stream and how the structure changes with time. The Geminids and Quadrantids were the most prominent showers seen by CMOR, and had peak mass indices of 1.65 and 1.55, respectively. They had clear, strong peaks and little year-to-year variation. The other showers had slightly higher peak mass indices and a greater variability, even though a more sporadic contamination, which might have affected the results.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.188 · 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