Determination of the orbits of inner Jupiter satellites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some problems in determining the orbits of inner satellites associated with the complex behavior of the target function, which is strongly ravine and which possesses multiple minima in the case of the satellite orbit is determined based on fragmentary observations distributed over a rather long time interval, are studied. These peculiarities of the inverse problems are considered by the example of the dynamics of the inner Jupiter satellites: Amalthea, Thebe, Adrastea, and Metis. Numerical models of the satellite motions whose parameters were determined based on ground-based observations available at the moment to date have been constructed. A composite approach has been proposed for the effective search for minima of the target function. The approach allows one to obtain the respective evaluations of the orbital parameters only for several tens of iterations even in the case of very rough initial approximations. If two groups of observations are available (Adrastea), a formal minimization of the target function is shown to give a solution set, which is the best solution from the point of view of representation of the orbital motion, which is impossible to choose. Other estimates are given characterizing the specific nature of the inverse problems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".