On the structure and evolution of planets and their host stars – effects of various heating mechanisms on the size of giant gas planets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is already stated in the previous studies that the radius of the giant planets is affected by stellar irradiation.The confirmed relation between radius and incident flux depends on planetary mass intervals.In this study, we show that there is a single relation between radius and irradiated energy per gram per second (l -), for all mass intervals.There is an extra increase in radius of planets if l -is higher than 1100 times energy received by the Earth (l ⊕ ).This is likely due to dissociation of molecules.The tidal interaction as a heating mechanism is also considered and found that its maximum effect on the inflation of planets is about 15 per cent.We also compute age and heavy element abundances from the properties of host stars, given in the TEPCat catalogue (Southworth 2011).The metallicity given in the literature is as [Fe/H].However, the most abundant element is oxygen, and there is a reverse relation between the observed abundances [Fe/H] and [O/Fe].Therefore, we first compute [O/H] from [Fe/H] by using observed abundances, and then find heavy element abundance from [O/H].We also develop a new method for age determination.Using the ages we find, we analyse variation of both radius and mass of the planets with respect to time, and estimate the initial mass of the planets from the relation we derive for the first time.According to our results, the highly irradiated gas giants lose 5 per cent of their mass in every 1 Gyr.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".