MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2395857532

Non-Linear Stability of L 4 in the Restricted Three-Body Problem When the Smaller Primary is a Finite Straight Segment Under Resonance Cases

2014· article· en· W2395857532 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ruchika Jain, Deepa Sinha

Bibliographic record

VenueInvertis Journal of Science & Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJupiter (rocket family)Three-body problemResonance (particle physics)AsteroidStability (learning theory)PhysicsLinear stabilityLagrangian pointOrder (exchange)Celestial mechanicsMathematicsCombinatoricsAstrophysicsClassical mechanicsAstronomyComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsInstability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we have studied the non-linear stability of the triangular libration point L4 in the restricted three-body problem when the smaller primary is a finite straight segment of length 2l under the presence of third and fourth order resonances. It is well known that most of the asteroids are irregularly shaped elongated bodies. We have taken these elongated bodies as a finite straight segment. We have used Markeev's theorem (1978) [1] to examine the non-linear stability for resonance cases 2:1 and 3:1. We have found that the triangular equilibrium solutions are always unstable in the third and fourth order resonance cases for 0 ≤ l < 0.05. We have applied the results to the following solar systems (i) Jupiter - 9 Metis (ii) Jupiter - 22 Kalliope (iii) Jupiter - 216 Kleopatra (iv) Jupiter 243 Ida (v) Jupiter - 433 Eros (vi) Jupiter - 951 Gaspra.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvertis Journal of Science & Technology→Same topicAstro and Planetary Science→French-language works237,207→