INTERIOR STRUCTURE OF WATER PLANETS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THEIR DYNAMO SOURCE REGIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent discoveries of water-rich, sub-Neptunian- to Neptunian-massed exoplanets with short-period orbits present a new parameter space for the study of exoplanetary dynamos. We explore the geometry of the dynamo source region within this parameter space using 1D interior structure models. We model planets with four chemically distinct layers that consist of (1) an iron core, (2) a silicate layer, (3) an H 2 O layer, and (4) an H/He envelope. By varying the total planetary mass in the range of 1–19 M ⊕ , the mass fraction of the H/He envelope between 0.1% and 5.1%, and the equilibrium temperature between 100 K and 1000 K, a survey of the parameter space for potential dynamo source region geometries is conducted. We find that due to the nature of the phase diagram of water at pressure and temperature conditions of planetary interiors, two different dynamo source region geometries are obtainable. Specifically, we find that smaller planets, and planets with thicker H/He envelopes, are likely to be in the regime of a thick-shelled dynamo. Massive planets, and planets with thin H/He envelopes, are likely to be in the regime of a thin-shelled dynamo. Also, small variations of these parameters can produce large interior structure differences. This implies the potential to constrain these parameters based on observations of a planet's magnetic field signature.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".