MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gravitational focusing and shielding of meteoroid streams

2007· article· en· W2022707811 on OpenAlexaff
J. Jones, L. M. G. Poole

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeteoroidPhysicsPlanetFlux (metallurgy)AstrophysicsAstrobiologyPerturbation (astronomy)Electromagnetic shieldingAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gravitational attraction of planets can cause significant perturbation of the trajectories of meteoroids. The resulting deflection can result in significant enhancement of the flux of meteoric particles in the neighbourhood of the planet. We give an analytical method for calculating the relative flux of stream meteoroids in the vicinity of a planet. We include the effect of shielding of certain regions that are not accessible to the meteoroids that have impacted the planet. We compare our results with those of Divine et al. and although we confirm the accuracy of their trajectory equations, the fluxes predicted by their calculations are not consistent with integrated fluxes over a planet predicted by the classic work of Öpik. Our method yields predictions for the integrated flux enhancement factor that are identical to Öpik's. We present the results of these calculations and find that in all cases, tail-like regions of enhanced meteoroid flux appear downstream of the planet, with very large enhancements possible in the case of the giant planets for all probable stream velocities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207