MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011549093 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/l11

RESONANT REPULSION OF <i>KEPLER</i> PLANET PAIRS

2012· article· he· W2011549093 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languagehe
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlanetDissipationTerrestrial planetSpitzer Space TelescopeSolar SystemPlanetary systemSpace (punctuation)Kepler

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planetary systems discovered by the Kepler space telescope exhibit an intriguing feature. While the period ratios of adjacent low-mass planets appear largely random, there is a significant excess of pairs that lie just wide of resonances and a deficit on the near side. We demonstrate that this feature naturally arises when two near-resonant planets interact in the presence of weak dissipation that damps eccentricities. The two planets repel each other as orbital energy is lost to heat. This moves near-resonant pairs just beyond resonance, by a distance that reflects the integrated dissipation they experienced over their lifetimes. We find that the observed distances may be explained by tides if tidal dissipation is unexpectedly efficient (tidal quality factor ∼10). Once the effect of resonant repulsion is accounted for, the initial orbits of these low-mass planets show little preference for resonances. This could constrain their origin.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.236 · 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