MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2253926554 · doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/31

OSSOS. II. A SHARP TRANSITION IN THE ABSOLUTE MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF THE KUIPER BELT’S SCATTERING POPULATION

2016· article· en· W2253926554 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsEclipticScatteringAbsolute magnitudeSolar SystemPopulationNeptuneMagnitude (astronomy)Scattering amplitude

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We measure the absolute magnitude, H , distribution, dN ( H ) ∝ 10 αH , of the scattering Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs) as a proxy for their size-frequency distribution. We show that the H -distribution of the scattering TNOs is not consistent with a single-slope distribution, but must transition around H g ∼ 9 to either a knee with a shallow slope or to a divot, which is a differential drop followed by second exponential distribution. Our analysis is based on a sample of 22 scattering TNOs drawn from three different TNO surveys—the Canada–France Ecliptic Plane Survey, Alexandersen et al., and the Outer Solar System Origins Survey, all of which provide well-characterized detection thresholds—combined with a cosmogonic model for the formation of the scattering TNO population. Our measured absolute magnitude distribution result is independent of the choice of cosmogonic model. Based on our analysis, we estimate that the number of scattering TNOs is (2.4–8.3) × 10 5 for H r < 12. A divot H -distribution is seen in a variety of formation scenarios and may explain several puzzles in Kuiper Belt science. We find that a divot H -distribution simultaneously explains the observed scattering TNO, Neptune Trojan, Plutino, and Centaur H -distributions while simultaneously predicting a large enough scattering TNO population to act as the sole supply of the Jupiter-Family Comets.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 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

Citations43
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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