MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756271784 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa8b65

Details of Resonant Structures within a Nice Model Kuiper Belt: Predictions for High-perihelion TNO Detections

2017· article· en· W2756271784 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsNice modelNeptuneLibration (molecule)Solar SystemObservablePopulationPlanet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We analyze a detailed Nice model simulation of Kuiper Belt emplacement from Brasser & Morbidelli, where Neptune undergoes a high-eccentricity phase and migrates outward. In this work, which follows from Pike et al., we specifically focus on the details of structures within Neptune’s mean-motion resonances and in the high-pericenter population of simulated trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs). We find several characteristics of these populations that should be observable in the distant solar system in future large-scale TNO surveys as a diagnostic of whether or not this mode of Neptune migration occurred in the early solar system. We find that the leading asymmetric libration islands of the n :1 resonances are generally much more populated than the trailing islands. We also find the nonresonant high- q population of TNOs should have higher inclinations than the low- q population due to the importance of Kozai cycling during their emplacement histories. Finally, high- q TNOs should be present in roughly equal numbers on either side of distant mean-motion resonances. These predictions contrast with predictions from other Kuiper Belt emplacement simulations and will be testable by upcoming surveys.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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