Forming Planetesimals in Solar and Extrasolar Nebulae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Planets are built from planetesimals: solids larger than a kilometer that grow by colliding in pairs. Planetesimals themselves are unlikely to form by two-body collisions alone; subkilometer objects have gravitational fields individually too weak, and electrostatic attraction is too feeble for growth beyond a few centimeters. We review the possibility that planetesimals form when self-gravity brings together vast ensembles of small particles. Even when self-gravity is weak, aerodynamic processes can accumulate solids relative to gas, paving the way for gravitational collapse. Particles pile up as they drift radially inward. Gas turbulence stirs particles but can also seed collapse by clumping them. Whereas the feedback of solids on gas triggers vertical-shear instabilities that obstruct self-gravity, this same feedback triggers streaming instabilities that strongly concentrate particles. Numerical simulations find that solids ∼10–100 cm in size gravitationally collapse in turbulent disks. We outline areas for progress, including the possibility that still smaller objects self-gravitate.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".