MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087667589 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/1/13

OHMIC HEATING SUSPENDS, NOT REVERSES, THE COOLING CONTRACTION OF HOT JUPITERS

2012· article· en· W2087667589 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHot JupiterPlanetRADIUSJoule heatingRadiative coolingOhmic contactThermal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the radius evolution of close-in extra-solar Jupiters under Ohmic heating, a mechanism that was recently proposed to explain the large observed sizes of many of these planets. Planets are born with high entropy and they subsequently cool and contract. We focus on two cases: first, that Ohmic heating commences when the planet is hot (high entropy); and second, that it commences after the planet has cooled. In the former case, we use analytical scaling and numerical experiments to confirm that Ohmic heating is capable of suspending the cooling as long as a few percent of the stellar irradiation is converted into Ohmic heating and the planet has a surface wind that extends to pressures of ∼10 bar or deeper. For these parameters, the radii at which cooling is stalled are consistent with (or larger than) the observed radii of most planets. The only two exceptions are WASP-17b and HAT-P-32b. In contrast to the high entropy case, we show that Ohmic heating cannot significantly re-inflate planets after they have already cooled. This leads us to suggest that the diversity of radii observed in hot Jupiters may be partially explained by the different epochs at which they are migrated to their current locations.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations69
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207