The unexpected 2012 Draconid meteor storm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An unexpected intense outburst of the Draconid meteor shower was detected by the Canadian Meteor Orbit Radar on 2012 October 8. The peak flux occurred at ∼16:40 ut on October 8 with a maximum of 2.4 ± 0.3 h−1 km−2 (appropriate to meteoroid mass larger than 10−7 kg), equivalent to a ZHRmax ≈ 9000 ± 1000 using 5-min intervals, using a mass distribution index of s = 1.88 ± 0.01 as determined from the amplitude distribution of underdense Draconid echoes. This makes the outburst among the strongest Draconid returns since 1946 and the highest flux shower since the 1966 Leonid meteor storm, assuming that a constant power-law distribution holds from radar to visual meteoroid sizes. The weighted mean geocentric radiant in the time interval of 15–19 h ut, 2012 October 8, was αg = 262| $_{.}^{\circ}$|4 ± 0| $_{.}^{\circ}$|1, δg = 55| $_{.}^{\circ}$|7 ± 0| $_{.}^{\circ}$|1 (epoch J2000.0). Visual observers also reported increased activity around the peak time, but with a much lower rate (ZHR ∼ 200), suggesting that the magnitude–cumulative number relationship is not a simple power law. Ablation modelling of the observed meteors as a population does not yield a unique solution for the grain size and distribution of Draconid meteoroids, but is consistent with a typical Draconid meteoroid of mtotal between 10−6 and 10−4 kg being composed of 10–100 grains. Dynamical simulations indicate that the outburst was caused by dust particles released during the 1966 perihelion passage of the parent comet, 21P/Giacobini-Zinner, although there are discrepancies between the modelled and observed timing of the encounter, presumably caused by approaches of the comet to Jupiter during 1966–1972. Based on the results of our dynamical simulation, we predict possible increased activity of the Draconid meteor shower in 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2025.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".