MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405552219 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/103

PLANETARY EMBRYO BOW SHOCKS AS A MECHANISM FOR CHONDRULE FORMATION

2016· article· en· W2405552219 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBow shock (aerodynamics)ChondruleRadiative transferOutgassingShock (circulatory)Bow waveThermalRadiative coolingShock wave

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We use radiation hydrodynamics with direct particle integration to explore the feasibility of chondrule formation in planetary embryo bow shocks. The calculations presented here are used to explore the consequences of a Mars-size planetary embryo traveling on a moderately excited orbit through the dusty, early environment of the solar system. The embryo’s eccentric orbit produces a range of supersonic relative velocities between the embryo and the circularly orbiting gas and dust, prompting the formation of bow shocks. Temporary atmospheres around these embryos, which can be created via volatile outgassing and gas capture from the surrounding nebula, can non-trivially affect thermal profiles of solids entering the shock. We explore the thermal environment of solids that traverse the bow shock at different impact radii, the effects that planetoid atmospheres have on shock morphologies, and the stripping efficiency of planetoidal atmospheres in the presence of high relative winds. Simulations are run using adiabatic and radiative conditions, with multiple treatments for the local opacities. Shock speeds of 5, 6, and 7 km s −1 are explored. We find that a high-mass atmosphere and inefficient radiative conditions can produce peak temperatures and cooling rates that are consistent with the constraints set by chondrule furnace studies. For most conditions, the derived cooling rates are potentially too high to be consistent with chondrule formation.

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 score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207