A comparative study of disc-planet interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We perform numerical simulations of a disc–planet system using various grid-based and smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) codes. The tests are run for a simple setup where Jupiter and Neptune mass planets on a circular orbit open a gap in a protoplanetary disc during a few hundred orbital periods. We compare the surface density contours, potential vorticity and smoothed radial profiles at several times. The disc mass and gravitational torque time evolution are analysed with high temporal resolution. There is overall consistency between the codes. The density profiles agree within about 5 per cent for the Eulerian simulations. The SPH results predict the correct shape of the gap although have less resolution in the low-density regions and weaker planetary wakes. The disc masses after 200 orbital periods agree within 10 per cent. The spread is larger in the tidal torques acting on the planet which agree within a factor of 2 at the end of the simulation. In the Neptune case, the dispersion in the torques is greater than for Jupiter, possibly owing to the contribution from the not completely cleared region close to the planet.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".