MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885390363 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aada46

In Search of Recent Disruption of (3200) Phaethon: Model Implication and <i>Hubble Space Telescope</i> Search

2018· article· en· W2885390363 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeteor (satellite)AsteroidSpacecraftDozenOrbit (dynamics)MeteoroidMeteor showerLimit (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Near-Earth asteroid (3200) Phaethon is notable for its association with a strong annual meteor shower, the Geminids, indicative of one or more episodes of mass ejection in the past. The mechanism of Phaethon’s past activity is not yet understood. Here, we present a Hubble Space Telescope ( HST ) search of meter-sized fragments in the vicinity of Phaethon, carried out during Phaethon’s historic approach to Earth in mid-December of 2017. Numerical simulations conducted to guide HST ’s pointing also show that the dynamical evolution of Phaethon-originated particles is quick, as ejected materials take no longer than ∼250 years to spread to the entire orbit of Phaethon. Our search was completed down to a 4 m class limit (assuming Phaethon-like albedo) and was expected to detect 0.035% of particles ejected by Phaethon in the past several decades. The negative result of our search capped the total mass loss of Phaethon over the past few dozen orbits to be 10 12 kg at the 3 σ level, taking the best estimates of size power-law from meteor observations and spacecraft data. Our result also implies a millimeter-sized dust flux of within 0.1 au of Phaethon, suggesting that any Phaethon-bound mission is unlikely to encounter dense dust clouds.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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