MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524770893 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/149

THE EVOLUTION OF GAS GIANT ENTROPY DURING FORMATION BY RUNAWAY ACCRETION

2017· article· en· W2524770893 on OpenAlexaff
David Berardo, A. Cumming, Gabriel-Dominique Marleau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsPlanetRadiative transferAccretion (finance)OpacityEffective temperatureRadiative coolingGiant planetEntropy (arrow of time)ThermodynamicsPlanetary systemStarsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We calculate the evolution of gas giant planets during the runaway gas accretion phase of formation, to understand how the luminosity of young giant planets depends on the accretion conditions. We construct steady-state envelope models, and run time-dependent simulations of accreting planets with the code Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics. We show that the evolution of the internal entropy depends on the contrast between the internal adiabat and the entropy of the accreted material, parametrized by the shock temperature T 0 and pressure P 0 . At low temperatures ( – , depending on model parameters), the accreted material has a lower entropy than the interior. The convection zone extends to the surface and can drive a high luminosity, leading to rapid cooling and cold starts. For higher temperatures, the accreted material has a higher entropy than the interior, giving a radiative zone that stalls cooling. For , the surface–interior entropy contrast cannot be accommodated by the radiative envelope, and the accreted matter accumulates with high entropy, forming a hot start. The final state of the planet depends on the shock temperature, accretion rate, and starting entropy at the onset of runaway accretion. Cold starts with require low accretion rates and starting entropy, and the temperature of the accreting material needs to be maintained close to the nebula temperature. If instead the temperature is near the value required to radiate the accretion luminosity, , as suggested by previous work on radiative shocks in the context of star formation, gas giant planets form in a hot start with .

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)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.227
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations72
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207