MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A telescopic search for large Perseid meteoroids

2004· article· en· W2142985618 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Beech, A. Illingworth, Peter Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsCampion CollegeWestern UniversityUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeteoroidPhysicsAtmosphere (unit)Limiting magnitudeMagnitude (astronomy)AstrophysicsAstronomyRemote sensingTelescopeMeteorologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A search for metre-sized and larger exo-atmosphere Perseid meteoroids via their surface reflected sunlight has been made with the 1.2-m Elginfield Telescope. A total survey time of 9.66 h was accumulated during the nights of 2002 August 10, 11 and 12. To a limiting apparent magnitude of +17, we made no distinct detection of any large exo-atmosphere Perseid meteoroids. Our telescopic survey results constrain the upper limit to the spatial number density of metre-sized and larger Perseid meteoroids to be less than ∼3 × 10−3 per 109 km3. We have also analysed a data set of possible in-atmosphere Perseid fireball events detected by space-based optical and infrared sensors. Operating at a detection threshold of magnitude −17, the space-based sensors have detected eight possible Perseid fireballs in the 15-d window, centred on the time of shower maximum, over the cumulative time interval from 1978 August to 2000 August. The space-based sensor data yield a spatial number density of ∼7 × 10−8 per 109 km3 for metre-sized and larger Perseid meteoroids.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicAstro and Planetary Science→French-language works237,207→