MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2523497335 · doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/147

THE PAN-STARRS 1 DISCOVERIES OF FIVE NEW NEPTUNE TROJANS

2016· article· en· W2523497335 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hsing Wen Lin, Ying-Tung Chen, Matthew J. Holman, Wing‐Huen Ip, Matthew J. Payne, Pedro Lacerda, Wesley C. Fraser, D. W. Gerdes, Allyson Bieryla, Zong-Fu Sie, Wen-Ping Chen, W. S. Burgett, L. Denneau, Robert Jedicke, N. Kaiser, E. A. Magnier, J. Tonry, R. J. Wainscoat, C. Waters

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilPlanetary Science DivisionScience Mission DirectorateSmithsonian Astrophysical ObservatoryMax-Planck-Institut für AstronomieMinistry of Education, IndiaQueen's UniversityJohns Hopkins UniversityQueen's University BelfastNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Central UniversitySpace Telescope Science InstituteDurham UniversitySmithsonian InstitutionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTrojanNeptunePhysicsAstronomyPopulationAstrobiologyAstrophysicsPlanet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In this work, we report the detection of seven Neptune Trojans (NTs) in the Pan-STARRS 1 (PS1) survey. Five of these are new discoveries, consisting of four L4 Trojans and one L5 Trojan. Our orbital simulations show that the L5 Trojan stably librates for only several million years. This suggests that the L5 Trojan must be of recent capture origin. On the other hand, all four new L4 Trojans stably occupy the 1:1 resonance with Neptune for more than 1 Gyr. They can, therefore, be of primordial origin. Our survey simulation results show that the inclination width of the NT population should be between 7° and 27° at >95% confidence, and most likely ∼11°. In this paper, we describe the PS1 survey, the Outer Solar System pipeline, the confirming observations, and the orbital/physical properties of the new NTs.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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