MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138358546 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912909

A cometary origin for CO in the stratosphere of Saturn?

2009· article· en· W2138358546 on OpenAlexaff
T. Cavalié, P. Hartogh, F. Billebaud, M. Dobrijévic, Thierry Fouchet, E. Lellouch, Thérèse Encrenaz, J. Brillet, G. H. Moriarty‐Schieven

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsSaturnStratosphereRadiative transferAstrophysicsAtmosphere (unit)Line (geometry)PlanetContext (archaeology)AstronomyAstrobiologyAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<i>Context. <i/>The CO(3–2) line has been observed in the atmosphere of Saturn. The CO(3–2) observation proves that an external source of CO exists in the stratosphere of the planet.<i>Aims. <i/>We attempt to constrain the type and magnitude of the external source of CO in the atmosphere of Saturn, by observing the emission core of the CO(6–5) line.<i>Methods. <i/>We observed the CO(6–5) line at the limbs of Saturn. We analysed the observations by means of a 1-D transport model of the atmosphere of Saturn, coupled with a radiative transfer model.<i>Results. <i/>We obtained a high signal-to-noise ratio spectrum that confirms the existence of an external source of CO in the stratosphere of Saturn. We demonstrated that a cometary origin of CO is the most probable, an impact occurring 220<i>±<i/>30 years ago and depositing (2.1<i>±<i/>0.4) g of CO above 0.1 mbar. However, we cannot totally reject the possibility of CO originating (at least partially) in a steady source. <i>Conclusions. <i/>Complete photochemical modelling of the oxygen compounds is required to determine realistic error bars of the inferred quantities and to conclude on the origin of CO.

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 score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations48
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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