ON A POSSIBLE SIZE/COLOR RELATIONSHIP IN THE KUIPER BELT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Color measurements and albedo distributions introduce non-intuitive observational biases in size–color relationships among Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) that cannot be disentangled without a well characterized sample population with systematic photometry. Peixinho et al. report that the form of the KBO color distribution varies with absolute magnitude, H . However, Tegler et al. find that KBO color distributions are a property of object classification. We construct synthetic models of observed KBO colors based on two B − R color distribution scenarios: color distribution dependent on H magnitude ( H -Model) and color distribution based on object classification (Class-Model). These synthetic B − R color distributions were modified to account for observational flux biases. We compare our synthetic B − R distributions to the observed "Hot" and "Cold" detected objects from the Canada–France Ecliptic Plane Survey and the Meudon Multicolor Survey. For both surveys, the Hot population color distribution rejects the H -Model, but is well described by the Class-Model. The Cold objects reject the H -Model, but the Class-Model (while not statistically rejected) also does not provide a compelling match for data. Although we formally reject models where the structure of the color distribution is a strong function of H magnitude, we also do not find that a simple dependence of color distribution on orbit classification is sufficient to describe the color distribution of classical KBOs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".