MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528224460 · doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/212

OSSOS. IV. DISCOVERY OF A DWARF PLANET CANDIDATE IN THE 9:2 RESONANCE WITH NEPTUNE

2016· article· en· W2528224460 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of VictoriaHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilAcademia SinicaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueCanadian Foundation for AIDS Research
KeywordsNeptunePlanetOrbit (dynamics)Brown dwarfSolar SystemResonance (particle physics)Orbital eccentricityPopulationNice modelDwarf planet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We report the discovery and orbit of a new dwarf planet candidate, 2015 RR 245 , by the Outer Solar System Origins Survey (OSSOS). The orbit of 2015 RR 245 is eccentric ( e = 0.586), with a semimajor axis near 82 au, yielding a perihelion distance of 34 au. 2015 RR 245 has and absolute magnitude for an assumed albedo of p V = 12%, the object has a diameter of ∼670 km. Based on astrometric measurements from OSSOS and Pan-STARRS1, we find that 2015 RR 245 is securely trapped on ten-megayear timescales in the 9:2 mean-motion resonance with Neptune. It is the first trans-Neptunian object (TNO) identified in this resonance. On hundred-megayear timescales, particles in 2015 RR 245 -like orbits depart and sometimes return to the resonance, indicating that 2015 RR 245 likely forms part of the long-lived metastable population of distant TNOs that drift between resonance sticking and actively scattering via gravitational encounters with Neptune. The discovery of a 9:2 TNO stresses the role of resonances in the long-term evolution of objects in the scattering disk and reinforces the view that distant resonances are heavily populated in the current solar system. This object further motivates detailed modeling of the transient sticking population.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.192
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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