MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109860978 · doi:10.1086/380117

On the Flux of Extrasolar Dust in Earth’s Atmosphere

2004· article· en· W2109860978 on OpenAlexaff
Norman Murray, Joseph C. Weingartner, Christopher C. Capobianco

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMeteoroidDebris diskExoplanetAstronomyInterplanetary dust cloudAstrophysicsSolar SystemStarsPlanetary systemCosmic dustAstrobiologyPlanetAtmosphere (unit)Interplanetary mediumDebrisFlux (metallurgy)Interplanetary spaceflightSolar windPlasmaMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Micron size extrasolar dust particles have been convincingly detected by satellites. Larger extrasolar meteoroids (5-35 microns) have most likely been detected by ground based radar at Arecibo and New Zealand. We present estimates of the minimum detectable particle sizes and collecting areas for both radar systems. We show that particles larger than ∼ 10µm can propagate for tens of parsecs through the interstellar medium, opening up the possibility that ground based radar systems can detect AGB stars, young stellar objects such as T Tauri stars, and debris disks around Vega-like stars. We provide analytical and numerical estimates of the ejection velocity in the case of a debris disk interacting with a Jupiter mass planet. We provide rough estimates of the flux of large micrometeoroids from all three classes of sources. Current radar systems are unlikely to detect significant numbers of meteors from debris disks such as Beta Pictoris. However, we suggest improvements to radar systems that should allow for the detection of multiple examples of all three classes. Subject headings: 1.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations44
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207