MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112913295 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015161

Water production in comet 81P/Wild 2 as determined by<i>Herschel</i>/HIFI

2010· article· en· W2112913295 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationStockholms UniversitetMinisterstwo Edukacji i NaukiChalmers Tekniska HögskolaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCometMean kinetic temperatureLine (geometry)Spectral lineComa (optics)Emission spectrumProduction rateSpectral resolutionExcitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The high spectral resolution and sensitivity of <i>Herschel<i/>/HIFI allows for the detection of multiple rotational water lines and accurate determinations of water production rates in comets. In this Letter we present HIFI observations of the fundamental 1<sub>10<sub/>–1<sub>01<sub/> (557 GHz) ortho and 1<sub>11<sub/>–<sub>00<sub/> (1113 GHz) para rotational transitions of water in comet 81P/Wild 2 acquired in February 2010. We mapped the extent of the water line emission with five point scans. Line profiles are computed using excitation models which include excitation by collisions with electrons and neutrals and solar infrared radiation. We derive a mean water production rate of <i>1.0<i/> × 10<sup>28<sup/> molecules s<sup>-1<sup/> at a heliocentric distance of 1.61 AU about 20 days before perihelion, in agreement with production rates measured from the ground using observations of the 18-cm OH lines. Furthermore, we constrain the electron density profile and gas kinetic temperature, and estimate the coma expansion velocity by fitting the water line shapes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207