MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811387092 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaceac

Dynamics and Formation of the Near-resonant K2-24 System: Insights from Transit-timing Variations and Radial Velocities

2018· article· en· W2811387092 on OpenAlexaff
Erik A. Petigura, Björn Benneke, Konstantin Batygin, Benjamin J. Fulton, M. W. Werner, Jessica Krick, Varoujan Gorjian, Evan Sinukoff, Katherine M. Deck, Sean M. Mills, Drake Deming

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPlanetAstrophysicsUranusAccretion (finance)Transit (satellite)Radial velocityPlanetary systemPlanetary migrationSaturnAstronomyStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While planets between the size of Uranus and Saturn are absent within the solar system, the star K2-24 hosts two such planets, K2-24b and c, with radii equal to 5.4 and 7.5 , respectively. The two planets have orbital periods of 20.9 days and 42.4 days, residing only 1% outside the nominal 2:1 mean-motion resonance. In this work, we present results from a coordinated observing campaign to measure planet masses and eccentricities that combines radial velocity measurements from Keck/HIRES and transit-timing measurements from K2 and Spitzer . K2-24b and c have low, but nonzero, eccentricities of . The low observed eccentricities provide clues to the formation and dynamical evolution of K2-24b and K2-24c, suggesting that they could be the result of stochastic gravitational interactions with a turbulent protoplanetary disk, among other mechanisms. K2-24b and c are and , respectively; K2-24c is 20% less massive than K2-24b, despite being 40% larger. Their large sizes and low masses imply large envelope fractions, which we estimate at % and %. In particular, K2-24c’s large envelope presents an intriguing challenge to the standard model of core-nucleated accretion that predicts the onset of runaway accretion when ≈ 50%.

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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
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

Citations43
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207