MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long-term evolution of the Neptune Trojan 2001 QR322

2004· article· en· W2086137108 on OpenAlexaff
Ramon Brasser, Seppo Mikkola, Tao Huang, Paul Wiegert, K. A. Innanen

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrojanPhysicsLibration (molecule)NeptuneOrbit (dynamics)Eccentricity (behavior)Orbital elementsLagrangian pointAstronomyCelestial mechanicsAstrophysicsPlanetPoint (geometry)GeometryAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We simulated more than a hundred possible orbits of the Neptune Trojan 2001 QR322 for the age of the Solar system. The orbits were generated randomly according to the probability density derived from the covariance matrix of the orbital elements. The test trajectories librate around Neptune's L4 point, with amplitudes varying from 40° to 75° and libration periods varying from 8900 to 9300 yr. The ν18 secular resonance plays an important role. There is a separatrix of the resonance so that the resonant angle switches irregularly between libration and circulation. The orbits are chaotic, with observed Lyapunov times from 1.7 to 20 Myr, approximately. The probability of escape to a non-Trojan orbit in our simulations was low, and only occurred for orbits starting near the low-probability edge of the orbital element distribution (largest values of initial semimajor axis and small eccentricity). This suggests that the Trojan may well be a primordial object.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations37
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207