Evolutionary constraints on the planetary hypothesis for transition discs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We assume a scenario in which transition discs (i.e. discs around young stars that have signatures of cool dust but lack significant near-infrared emission from warm dust) are associated with the presence of planets (or brown dwarfs). These are assumed to filter the dust content of any gas flow within the planetary orbit and produce an inner ‘opacity hole’. In order to match the properties of transition discs with the largest (∼50 au scale) holes, we place such ‘planets’ at large radii in massive discs and then follow the evolution of the tidally coupled disc–planet system, comparing the system's evolution in the plane of mm flux against hole radius with the properties of observed transition discs. We find that, on account of the high disc masses in these systems, all but the most massive ‘planets’ (100 Jupiter masses) are conveyed to small radii by Type II migration without significant fading at millimetre wavelengths. Such behaviour would contradict the observed lack of mm bright transition discs with small (<10 au) holes. On the other hand, imaging surveys clearly rule out the presence of such massive companions in transition discs. We conclude that this is a serious problem for models that seek to explain transition discs in terms of planetary companions unless some mechanism can be found to halt inward migration and/or suppress mm flux production. We suggest that the dynamical effects of substantial accretion on to the planet/through the gap may offer the best prospect for halting such migration and that further long-term simulations are required to clarify this issue.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".