MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2269789618 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/18

ON THE MASS AND ORIGIN OF CHARIKLO’S RINGS

2016· article· en· W2269789618 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret Pan, Yanqin Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentaurPhysicsEccentricity (behavior)Ring (chemistry)AstrophysicsLongitudePlanetPrecessionSolar SystemOrbit (dynamics)AstronomyLatitudeChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Observations in 2013 and 2014 of the Centaur 10199 Chariklo and its ring system consistently indicated that the radial width of the inner, more massive ring varies with longitude. That strongly suggests that this ring has a finite eccentricity despite the fast differential precession that Chariklo’s large quadrupole moment should induce. If the inferred apse alignment is maintained by the ring’s self-gravity, as it is for the Uranian rings, we estimate a ring mass of a few times 10 16 g and a typical particle size of a few meters. These values imply a collisional spreading time of ∼10 5 years, which is somewhat shorter than the typical Centaur dynamical lifetime of a few million years and much shorter than the age of the solar system. In light of this time constraint, we evaluate previously suggested ring formation pathways including collisional ejection and satellite disruption. We also investigate in detail a contrasting formation mechanism, the lofting of dust particles off Chariklo’s surface into orbit via outflows of sublimating CO and/or N 2 triggered after Chariklo was scattered inward by giant planets. This alternate scenario predicts that rings should be common among 100 km class Centaurs but rare among Kuiper Belt objects and smaller Centaurs. It also predicts that Centaurs should show seasonal variations in cometary activity with activity maxima occurring shortly after equinox.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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