Extra-atmospheric masses of the Canadian Network bolides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extra-atmospheric masses of meteoric bodies have previously been determined using the so-called photometric formula, by integrating the luminosity along the visible portion of the trajectory. On the other hand, the mass of a meteoroid characterizes the braking height and intensity of the meteoroid in the atmosphere. Some studies note a substantial disagreement between the masses obtained in these two ways, using bolides of the European Bolide Network and of the US Prairie Network as examples. In nearly all cases, the photometric mass exceeds the mass determined from the braking intensity by an order of magnitude or more. Two explanations were suggested for this fact. According to one of them, a swarm of fragments, similar in size, rather than a single body is moving. This swarm brakes as an individual fragment, while it glows as a collection of fragments; i.e., it is much brighter than an individual fragment. The extra-atmospheric mass is determined here by properly fitting the parameters describing the braking of the meteor along the entire visible section of the trajectory. The results obtained for the bolides of the Canadian Network confirm again that the photometric approach is not tenable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".