MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998308462 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/156

INTERIOR STRUCTURE OF WATER PLANETS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THEIR DYNAMO SOURCE REGIONS

2013· article· en· W1998308462 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamoPlanetExoplanetParameter spaceDynamo theoryTerrestrial planetEnvelope (radar)Planetary massMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 1-D interior structure models. We model planets with 4 chemically distinct layers that consist of (1) an iron core, (2) a silicate layer, (3) an H2O layer, and (4) an H/He envelope. By varying the total planetary mass in the range of 1 - 19 Earth masses, the mass fraction of the H/He envelope between 0.1 - 5.1%, and the equilibrium temperature between 100 - 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207