The extra-atmospheric mass of small meteoroids of the Prairie and Canada bolide camera networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The existing methods for determining the extra-atmospheric mass of meteor bodies from observations of their movement in the atmosphere allow a certain arbitrariness. Active attempts to overcome the discrepancy between the results of calculations based on different approaches often lead to physically incorrect conclusions. A way out is to laboriously accumulate the estimates and computation results and to consistently remove ambiguities. To correctly interpret the observed brightness of a meteor, one should use contemporary methods and the results of physical studies of the emitting gas. In the present work, the extra-atmospheric masses of small meteoroids of the Prairie and Canada bolide camera networks were calculated from the observed braking. It turned out that, in many cases, the conditions of movement of meteor bodies in the atmosphere corresponded to a free molecular airflow about a body. The so-called dynamic mass of the bodies was estimated from the real densities of the meteoroid material, which corresponded to monolithic water ice and stone, and for the proper values of the product of the drag coefficient and shape factor. When producing the trial function for the body trajectories in the “velocity-altitude” variables, we did not allow for fragmentation explicitly, since it is less probable for small meteoroids than for large ones. As before, our estimates differ substantially from the photometric masses published in the corresponding tables.
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 | 0.001 | 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".