MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625580794 · doi:10.7916/d8-68ak-aj27

The low‐degree shape of Mercury

2015· article· en· W2625580794 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. E. Perry, G. A. Neumann

Bibliographic record

Venue2015 AGU Fall Meeting · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscow State University of Geodesy and CartographyRussian Science FoundationCarnegie Institution of WashingtonNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJohns Hopkins UniversityNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsDegree (music)Mercury (programming language)MathematicsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The shape of Mercury, particularly when combined with its geoid, provides clues to the planet's internal structure, thermal evolution, and rotational history. Elevation measurements of the northern hemisphere acquired by the Mercury Laser Altimeter on the MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging spacecraft, combined with 378 occultations of radio signals from the spacecraft in the planet's southern hemisphere, reveal the low‐degree shape of Mercury. Mercury's mean radius is 2439.36 ± 0.02 km, and there is a 0.14 km offset between the planet's centers of mass and figure. Mercury is oblate, with a polar radius 1.65 km less than the mean equatorial radius. The difference between the semimajor and semiminor equatorial axes is 1.25 km, with the long axis oriented 15° west of Mercury's dynamically defined principal axis. Mercury's geoid is also oblate and elongated, but it deviates from a sphere by a factor of 10 less than Mercury's shape, implying compensation of elevation variations on a global scale.

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)0.001
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 score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2015 AGU Fall MeetingSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207