MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329129041 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/9

THE ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION OF A NINE-HOT-JUPITER SAMPLE: PROBING CIRCULATION AND CHEMISTRY OVER A WIDE PHASE SPACE

2016· article· en· W2329129041 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tiffany Kataria, David K. Sing, Nikole K. Lewis, Channon Visscher, Adam P. Showman, Jonathan J. Fortney, Mark S. Marley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsHot JupiterPlanetAstrophysicsPhysicsExoplanetAtmospheric sciences

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We present results from an atmospheric circulation study of nine hot Jupiters that compose a large transmission spectral survey using the Hubble and Spitzer Space Telescopes . These observations exhibit a range of spectral behavior over optical and infrared wavelengths, suggesting diverse cloud and haze properties in their atmospheres. By utilizing the specific system parameters for each planet, we naturally probe a wide phase space in planet radius, gravity, orbital period, and equilibrium temperature. First, we show that our model “grid” recovers trends shown in traditional parametric studies of hot Jupiters, particularly equatorial superrotation and increased day–night temperature contrast with increasing equilibrium temperature. We show how spatial temperature variations, particularly between the dayside and nightside and west and east terminators, can vary by hundreds of kelvin, which could imply large variations in Na, K, CO and CH 4 abundances in those regions. These chemical variations can be large enough to be observed in transmission with high-resolution spectrographs, such as ESPRESSO on VLT, METIS on the E-ELT, or MIRI and NIRSpec aboard JWST . We also compare theoretical emission spectra generated from our models to available Spitzer eclipse depths for each planet and find that the outputs from our solar-metallicity, cloud-free models generally provide a good match to many of the data sets, even without additional model tuning. Although these models are cloud-free, we can use their results to understand the chemistry and dynamics that drive cloud formation in their atmospheres.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations183
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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