MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2207892168 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/162

NEPTUNE’S DYNAMIC ATMOSPHERE FROM KEPLER K2 OBSERVATIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR BROWN DWARF LIGHT CURVE ANALYSES

2016· article· en· W2207892168 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersScience Mission DirectorateSpace Telescope Science InstituteCalifornia Institute of TechnologyW. M. Keck FoundationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsLight curveBrown dwarfNeptuneBrightnessContext (archaeology)PlanetExoplanetAtmosphere (unit)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Observations of Neptune with the Kepler Space Telescope yield a 49 day light curve with 98% coverage at a 1 minute cadence. A significant signature in the light curve comes from discrete cloud features. We compare results extracted from the light curve data with contemporaneous disk-resolved imaging of Neptune from the Keck 10-m telescope at 1.65 microns and Hubble Space Telescope visible imaging acquired nine months later. This direct comparison validates the feature latitudes assigned to the K2 light curve periods based on Neptune's zonal wind profile, and confirms observed cloud feature variability. Although Neptune's clouds vary in location and intensity on short and long timescales, a single large discrete storm seen in Keck imaging dominates the K2 and Hubble light curves; smaller or fainter clouds likely contribute to short-term brightness variability. The K2 Neptune light curve, in conjunction with our imaging data, provides context for the interpretation of current and future brown dwarf and extrasolar planet variability measurements. In particular we suggest that the balance between large, relatively stable, atmospheric features and smaller, more transient, clouds controls the character of substellar atmospheric variability. Atmospheres dominated by a few large spots may show inherently greater light curve stability than those which exhibit a greater number of smaller features.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations42
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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