MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025052504 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/1/30

CHONDRULE DESTRUCTION IN NEBULAR SHOCKS

2014· article· en· W2025052504 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuel Jacquet, Christopher Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChondrulePlanetesimalMeteoritePhysicsFormation and evolution of the Solar SystemAstrophysicsChondriteShock waveShock (circulatory)AstrobiologySolar SystemMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chondrules are millimeter-sized silicate spherules ubiquitous in primitive meteorites, but whose origin remains mysterious. One of the main proposed mechanisms for producing them is melting of solids in shock waves in the gaseous protoplanetary disk. However, evidence is mounting that chondrule-forming regions were enriched in solids well above solar abundances. Given the high velocities involved in shock models destructive collisions would be expected between differently sized grains after passage of the shock front as a result of differential drag. We investigate the probability and outcome of collisions of particles behind a 1D shock using analytic methods as well as a full integration of the coupled mass, momentum, energy and radiation equations. Destruction of protochondrules seems unavoidable for solid/gas ratios $\epsilon \gtrsim 0.1$, and possibly even for solar abundances because of "sandblasting" by finer dust. A flow with $\epsilon \gtrsim 10$ requires much smaller shock velocities ($\sim 2$ vs 8 km s$^{-1}$) in order to achieve chondrule-melting temperatures, and radiation trapping allows slow cooling of the shocked fragments. Initial destruction would still be extensive; although re-assembly of mm-sized particles would naturally occur by grain sticking afterward, the compositional heterogeneity of chondrules may be difficult to reproduce. We finally note that solids passing through small-scale bow shocks around few-km-sized planetesimals might experience partial melting and yet escape fragmentation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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