MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137092421 · doi:10.1086/431743

Constraints on the Orbital Evolution of Triton

2005· article· en· W2137092421 on OpenAlexaff
Matija Ćuk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsOrbital elementsContext (archaeology)Space debrisAstrophysicsOrbit (dynamics)SatelliteOrbital mechanicsAstronomySpacecraftGeologyAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present simulations of Triton's post-capture orbit that confirm the importance of Kozai-type oscillations in its orbital elements. In the context of the tidal orbital evolution model, these variations require average pericenter distances much higher than previously published, and the timescale for the tidal orbital evolution of Triton becomes longer than the age of the Solar System. Recently-discovered irregular satellites present a new constraint on Triton's orbital history. Our numerical integrations of test particles indicate a timescale for Triton's orbital evolution to be less than $10^5$ yrs for a reasonable number of distant satellites to survive Triton's passage. This timescale is inconsistent with the exclusively tidal evolution (time scale of $>10^8$ yrs), but consistent with the interestion with the debris from satellite-satellite collisions. Any major regular satellites will quickly collide among themselves after being perturbed by Triton, and the resulting debris disk would eventually be swept up by Triton; given that the total mass of the Uranian satellite system is 40% of that of Triton, large scale evolution is possible. This scenario could have followed either collisional or the recently-discussed three-body-interaction-based capture.

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 score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations49
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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