MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982461131 · doi:10.1126/science.1163148

The Extreme Kuiper Belt Binary 2001 QW <sub>322</sub>

2008· article· en· W1982461131 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Petit, J. J. Kavelaars, Brett Gladman, Jean‐Luc Margot, P. D. Nicholson, Lynne Jones, J. W. Parker, M. L. N. Ashby, Adriano Campo Bagatín, Paula Gabriela Benavídez, J. Coffey, P. Rousselot, O. Mousis, Patrick Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsEclipticEccentricity (behavior)Binary numberSolar SystemOrbit (dynamics)Orbital planeOrbital eccentricityPlanetOrbital elementsAstronomyAstrophysicsOrbital inclinationAstrobiologySolar wind

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of binary Kuiper Belt objects helps to probe the dynamic conditions present during planet formation in the solar system. We report on the mutual-orbit determination of 2001 QW322, a Kuiper Belt binary with a very large separation whose properties challenge binary-formation and -evolution theories. Six years of tracking indicate that the binary's mutual-orbit period is approximately 25 to 30 years, that the orbit pole is retrograde and inclined 50 degrees to 62 degrees from the ecliptic plane, and, most surprisingly, that the mutual orbital eccentricity is <0.4. The semimajor axis of 105,000 to 135,000 kilometers is 10 times that of other near-equal-mass binaries. Because this weakly bound binary is prone to orbital disruption by interlopers, its lifetime in its present state is probably less than 1 billion 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations49
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207