MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Debris Disks: Structure, Composition, and Variability

2018· article· en· W2787750201 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebrisPlanetesimalZodiacal lightDebris diskPlanetary systemExoplanetSolar System

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Debris disks are tenuous, dust-dominated disks commonly observed around stars over a wide range of ages. Those around main sequence stars are analogous to the Solar System's Kuiper Belt and zodiacal light. The dust in debris disks is believed to be continuously regenerated, originating primarily with collisions of planetesimals. Observations of debris disks provide insight into the evolution of planetary systems; and the composition of dust, comets, and planetesimals outside the Solar System; as well as placing constraints on the orbital architecture and potentially the masses of exoplanets that are not otherwise detectable. This review highlights recent advances in multiwavelength, high-resolution scattered light and thermal imaging that have revealed a complex and intricate diversity of structures in debris disks and discusses how modeling methods are evolving with the breadth and depth of the available observations. Two rapidly advancing subfields highlighted in this review include observations of atomic and molecular gas around main sequence stars and variations in emission from debris disks on very short (days to years) timescales, providing evidence of non-steady-state collisional evolution particularly in young debris disks.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations311
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Astronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207