MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068916705 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1967

Constraining the initial entropy of directly detected exoplanets

2013· article· en· W2068916705 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel-Dominique Marleau, A. Cumming

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsBaryonPlanetExoplanetEntropy (arrow of time)Statistical physicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The post-formation, initial entropy Si of a gas giant planet is a key witness to its mass-assembly history and a crucial quantity for its early evolution. However, formation models are not yet able to predict reliably Si, making unjustified the use solely of traditional, ‘hot-start’ cooling tracks to interpret direct-imaging results and calling for an observational determination of initial entropies to guide formation scenarios. Using a grid of models in mass and entropy, we show how to place joint constraints on the mass and initial entropy of an object from its observed luminosity and age. This generalizes the usual estimate of only a lower bound on the real mass, through hot-start tracks. Moreover, we demonstrate that with mass information, e.g. from dynamical-stability analyses or radial velocity, tighter bounds can be set on the initial entropy. We apply this procedure to 2M1207 b and find that its initial entropy is at least 9.2 kB/baryon, assuming that it does not burn deuterium. For the planets of the HR 8799 system, we infer that they must have formed with Si > 9.2 kB/baryon, independent of uncertainties about the age of the star. Finally, a similar analysis for β Pic b reveals that it must have formed with Si > 10.5 kB/baryon, using the radial-velocity mass upper limit. These initial entropy values are, respectively, ca. 0.7, 0.5 and 1.5 kB/baryon higher than the ones obtained from core-accretion models by Marley et al., thereby quantitatively ruling out the coldest starts for these objects and constraining warm starts, especially for β Pic b.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations160
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207