MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2221235302 · doi:10.3847/2041-8205/817/2/l17

THE IN SITU FORMATION OF GIANT PLANETS AT SHORT ORBITAL PERIODS

2016· article· en· W2221235302 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlanetExoplanetHot JupiterGas giantPlanetary systemGiant planet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We propose that two of the most surprising results so far among exoplanet discoveries are related: the existences of both hot Jupiters and the high frequency of multi-planet systems with periods P ≲ 200 days. In this paradigm, the vast majority of stars rapidly form along with multiple close-in planets in the mass range of Mars to super-Earths/mini-Neptunes. Such systems of tightly packed inner planets are metastable, with the time scale of the dynamical instability having a major influence on final planet types. In most cases, the planets consolidate into a system of fewer, more massive planets, but long after the circumstellar gas disk has dissipated. This can yield planets with masses above the traditional critical core of ∼10 M ⊕ , yielding short-period giants that lack abundant gas. A rich variety of physical states are also possible given the range of collisional outcomes and formation time of the close-in planets. However, when dynamical consolidation occurs before gas dispersal, a critical core can form that then grows via gas capture into a short-period gas giant. In this picture the majority of Hot and Warm Jupiters formed locally, rather than migrating down from larger distances.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations126
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207