MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115622991 · doi:10.1029/2009je003334

An estimate of the terrestrial influx of large meteoroids from infrasonic measurements

2009· article· en· W2115622991 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth A. Silber, Douglas O. ReVelle, Peter Brown, W. N. Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeteoroidFlux (metallurgy)InfrasoundEnvironmental scienceMagnitude (astronomy)Kinetic energySatellitePhysicsMeteorologyGeologyAtmospheric sciencesAstrobiologyAstronomyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influx rate of meteoroids hitting the Earth is most uncertain at sizes of ∼10 m. Here we make use of historical data of large bolides recorded infrasonically over a period of 13 years by the U.S. Air Force Technical Applications Center (AFTAC) to refine the terrestrial influx rate at these sizes. Several independent techniques were applied to these airwave data to calculate bolide kinetic energies. At low energies our flux results are within a factor of two in agreement with previous estimates. For 5–20‐m diameter objects, however, our measurements of the cumulative number of Earth‐impacting meteoroids are as much as an order of magnitude higher than estimates from telescopic surveys of near‐Earth objects and satellite‐detected bolides impacting the Earth. The precise cause of this disagreement is unclear, though we propose several possible explanations. From our infrasound study, our best estimate for the cumulative annual flux of impactors with energy equal to or greater than E (in kilotons of TNT equivalent) is N = 4.5 E−0.6.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 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

Citations67
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207