MODELING THE FORMATION OF GIANT PLANET CORES. I. EVALUATING KEY PROCESSES
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most challenging problems we face in our understanding of planet formation is how Jupiter and Saturn could have formed before the the solar nebula dispersed. The most popular model of giant planet formation is the so-called 'core accretion' model. In this model a large planetary embryo formed first, mainly by two-body accretion. This is then followed by a period of inflow of nebular gas directly onto the growing planet. The core accretion model has an Achilles heel, namely the very first step. We have undertaken the most comprehensive study of this process to date. In this study we numerically integrate the orbits of a number of planetary embryos embedded in a swarm of planetesimals. In these experiments we have included: 1) aerodynamic gas drag, 2) collisional damping between planetesimals, 3) enhanced embryo cross-sections due to their atmospheres, 4) planetesimal fragmentation, and 5) planetesimal driven migration. We find that the gravitational interaction between the embryos and the planetesimals lead to the wholesale redistribution of material - regions are cleared of material and gaps open near the embryos. Indeed, in 90% of our simulations without fragmentation, the region near that embryos is cleared of planetesimals before much growth can occur. The remaining 10%, however, the embryos undergo a burst of outward migration that significantly increases growth. On timescales of ~100,000 years, the outer embryo can migrate ~6 AU and grow to roughly 30 Earth-masses. We also find that the inclusion of planetesimal fragmentation tends to inhibit growth.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it