MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071810769 · doi:10.1086/421288

The Evolution of Gravitationally Unstable Protoplanetary Disks: Fragmentation and Possible Giant Planet Formation

2004· article· en· W2071810769 on OpenAlexaff
Lucio Mayer, Thomas Quinn, James Wadsley, Joachim Stadel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsProtoplanetary diskFormation and evolution of the Solar SystemAdiabatic processEquation of statePlanetSmoothed-particle hydrodynamicsProtoplanetThick diskGravitational collapseThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We carry out a large set of very high resolution, three-dimensional, smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations describing the evolution of gravitationally unstable gaseous protoplanetary disks. We consider a broad range of initial disk parameters. Disk masses out to 20 AU range from 0.075 to 0.125 M ☉ , roughly consistent with the high end of the mass distribution inferred for disks around T Tauri stars. Minimum outer temperatures range from 30 to 100 K, as expected from studies of the early protosolar nebula and suggested by the modeling of the spectra of protoplanetary disks. The mass of the central star is also varied, although it is usually assumed to be equal to that of the Sun. Overall, the initial disks span minimum Q -parameters between 0.8 and 2, with most models having Q ~ 1.4. The disks are evolved assuming either a locally isothermal equation of state or an adiabatic equation of state with varying γ. Heating by (artificial) viscosity and shocks is included when the adiabatic equation of state is used. When condensations above a specific density threshold appear as a result of gravitational instability in a locally isothermal calculation, the equation of state is switched to adiabatic to account for the increased optical depth. We show that when a disk has a minimum Q -parameter less than 1.4, strong trailing spiral instabilities, typically three- or four-armed modes, form and grow until fragmentation occurs along the arms after about 5 mean disk orbital times. The resulting clumps contract quickly to densities several orders of magnitude higher than the initial disk density, and the densest of them survive even under adiabatic conditions. These clumps are stable to tidal disruption and merge quickly, leaving two to three protoplanets on fairly eccentric orbits (the mean eccentricity being around 0.2) after ~10 3 yr. Fragmentation is not strongly dependent on whether the disk starts from a marginally unstable state or gradually achieves it; we show that if the disk is allowed to grow in mass from a very light, very stable state over tens of orbital times, it still fragments at roughly the same mass and temperature as in the standard disk models. We show that the first stages of the instability, until the appearance of the overdensities, can be understood in terms of the maximum unstable Toomre wavelength and the local Jeans length. A high mass and force resolution are needed to correctly resolve both scales and follow the fragmentation process appropriately. Varying disk mass and temperature affects such physical scales and hence the typical masses of the protoplanets that form. Objects smaller than Saturn or a couple of times bigger than Jupiter can both be produced by fragmentation. Their final masses will then depend on the subsequent interactions and mergers with other clumps and on the accretion of disk material. The accretion rate depends on the disk thermodynamics and is negligible with adiabatic conditions. After ~10 3 yr the masses range from just below 1 M Jup to more than 7 M Jup , well in agreement with those of detected extrasolar planets.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations213
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207