PLANETARY MIGRATION AND ECCENTRICITY AND INCLINATION RESONANCES IN EXTRASOLAR PLANETARY SYSTEMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The differential migration of two planets due to planet–disk interaction can result in capture into the 2:1 eccentricity-type mean-motion resonances. Both the sequence of 2:1 eccentricity resonances that the system is driven through by continued migration and the possibility of a subsequent capture into the 4:2 inclination resonances are sensitive to the migration rate within the range expected for type II migration due to planet–disk interaction. If the migration rate is fast, the resonant pair can evolve into a family of 2:1 eccentricity resonances different from those found by Lee. This new family has outer orbital eccentricity e 2 ≳ 0.4–0.5, asymmetric librations of both eccentricity resonance variables, and orbits that intersect if they are exactly coplanar. Although this family exists for an inner-to-outer planet mass ratio m 1 / m 2 ≳ 0.2, it is possible to evolve into this family by fast migration only for m 1 / m 2 ≳ 2. Thommes and Lissauer have found that a capture into the 4:2 inclination resonances is possible only for m 1 / m 2 ≲ 2. We show that this capture is also possible for m 1 / m 2 ≳ 2 if the migration rate is slightly slower than that adopted by Thommes and Lissauer. There is significant theoretical uncertainty in both the sign and the magnitude of the net effect of planet–disk interaction on the orbital eccentricity of a planet. If the eccentricity is damped on a timescale comparable to or shorter than the migration timescale, e 2 may not be able to reach the values needed to enter either the new 2:1 eccentricity resonances or the 4:2 inclination resonances. Thus, if future observations of extrasolar planetary systems were to reveal certain combinations of mass ratio and resonant configuration, they would place a constraint on the strength of eccentricity damping during migration, as well as on the rate of the migration itself.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".