MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Decoherence time scales for “meteoroid streams”

2005· article· en· W1987282308 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Pauls, Brett Gladman

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeteoroidMeteoriteSTREAMSBreakupOrbital mechanicsSimilarity (geometry)Cosmic rayOrbital elementsOrbit (dynamics)PhysicsStatistical physicsAstrobiologyAstrophysicsAstronomyComputer scienceMechanicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract— We explore the orbital dynamics of Earth-crossing objects with the intent to understand the time scales under which an “orbital stream” of material could produce time-correlated meteorite falls. These “meteoroid streams” have been suggested to be associated with three well-known meteorite-dropping fireballs (Innisfree, Peekskill, and Příbram). We have performed two different analyses of the statistical significance of the “orbital similarity,” in particular calculating how often orbits of the same level of similarity would come from a random sample. Secondly, we have performed extremely detailed numerical integrations related to these three cases, and we find that if they were streams of objects in similar orbits, then they would become “decoherent” (in the sense that the day-of-fall of meteorites of these streams become almost random) on time scales of 104–105 yr. Thus, an extremely recent breakup would be required, much more recent that the cosmic ray exposure ages of the recovered falls in each case. We conclude that orbital destruction is too efficient to allow the existence of long-lived meteoroid streams and that the statistical evidence for such streams is insufficient; random fall patterns show comparable levels of clustering.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations55
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteoritics and Planetary ScienceSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207