MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hydrogen concentrations on C‐class asteroids derived from remote sensing

2003· article· en· W2057409261 on OpenAlexaff
A. S. Rivkin, John K. Davies, James R. Johnson, Sara L. Ellison, David E. Trilling, R. H. Brown, L. A. Lebofsky

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsteroidChondritePopulationAstrobiologyHydrogenGeologyCarbonaceous chondriteInfrared telescopeAbsorption bandPolarAsteroid beltSolar SystemInfraredPhysicsMineralogyAstronomyMeteoriteOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract— We present spectroscopic observations of 16 asteroids from 1.9‐3.6 μm collected from the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) from 1996–2000. Of these 16 asteroids, 11 show some evidence of a 3 μm hydrated mineral absorption feature greater than 2s̀ at 2.9 μm. Using relations first recognized for carbonaceous chondrite powders by Miyamoto and Zolensky (1994) and Sato et al. (1997), we have determined the hydrogen to silicon ratio for these asteroids and calculated their equivalent water contents, assuming all the hydrogen was in water. The asteroids split into 2 groups, roughly defined as equivalent water contents greater than ˜7% (8 asteroids, all with 3 μm band depths greater than ˜20%) and less than ˜3% for the remaining 8 asteroids. This latter group includes some asteroids for which a weak but statistically significant 3 μm band of non‐zero depth exists. The G‐class asteroids in the survey have higher water contents, consistent with CM chondrites. This strengthens the connection between CM chondrites and G asteroids that was proposed by Burbine (1998). We find that the 0.7 μm and 3 μm band depths are correlated for the population of target objects.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 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

Citations73
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteoritics and Planetary ScienceSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207