MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589574473 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa6036

The Splitting of Double-component Active Asteroid P/2016 J1 (PANSTARRS)

2017· article· en· W2589574473 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryJet Propulsion LaboratoryInstituto de Astrofísica de CanariasSmithsonian Astrophysical ObservatoryMax-Planck-Institut für AstronomieNational Central UniversityCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueMinistarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog RazvojaSpace Telescope Science InstituteQueen's University BelfastNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationEötvös Loránd TudományegyetemCalifornia Institute of TechnologyQueen's UniversityJohns Hopkins UniversityDurham UniversitySmithsonian InstitutionPlanetary Science DivisionScience Mission DirectorateMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAsteroidSublimation (psychology)Monte Carlo methodOrbital periodNear-Earth objectWater icePhotometry (optics)Orbit (dynamics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present deep imaging observations, orbital dynamics, and dust-tail model analyses of the double-component asteroid P/2016 J1 (J1-A and J1-B). The observations were acquired at the Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC) and the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) from mid-March to late July of 2016. A statistical analysis of backward-in-time integrations of the orbits of a large sample of clone objects of P/2016 J1-A and J1-B shows that the minimum separation between them occurred most likely ∼2300 days prior to the current perihelion passage, i.e., during the previous orbit near perihelion. This closest approach was probably linked to a fragmentation event of their parent body. Monte Carlo dust-tail models show that those two components became active simultaneously ∼250 days before the current perihelion, with comparable maximum loss rates of ∼0.7 and ∼0.5 kg s −1 , and total ejected masses of 8 × 10 6 and 6 × 10 6 kg for fragments J1-A and J1-B, respectively. Consequently, the fragmentation event and the present dust activity are unrelated. The simultaneous activation times of the two components and the fact that the activity lasted 6–9 months or longer, strongly indicate ice sublimation as the most likely mechanism involved in the dust emission process.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207