ON THE STABILITY OF DUST-LADEN PROTOPLANETARY VORTICES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The formation of planetesimals via gravitational instability of the dust layer in a protoplanetary disks demands that there be local patches where dust is concentrated by a factor of a few × 10 3 over the background value. Vortices in protoplanetary disks may concentrate dust to these values, allowing them to be the nurseries of planetesimals. The concentration of dust in the cores of vortices increases the dust–gas ratio of the core compared to the background disk, creating a "heavy vortex." In this work, we show that these vortices are subject to an instability which we have called the heavy-core instability. Using Floquet theory, we show that this instability occurs in elliptical protoplanetary vortices when the gas–dust density of the core of the vortex is heavier than the ambient gas–dust density by a few tens of percent. The heavy-core instability grows very rapidly, with a growth timescale of a few vortex rotation periods. While the nonlinear evolution of this instability remains unknown, it will likely increase the velocity dispersion of the dust layer in the vortex because instability sets in well before sufficient dust can gather to form a protoplanetary seed. This instability may thus preclude vortices from being sites of planetesimal formation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".