MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909963127 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafd31

Protoplanetary Disk Rings and Gaps across Ages and Luminosities

2019· article· en· W2909963127 on OpenAlexaff
Nienke van der Marel, Ruobing Dong, James Di Francesco, Jonathan P. Williams, John Tobin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlanetesimalAstrophysicsPhysicsPlanetRADIUSRadiative transferStarsAstronomySnow lineClearanceProtoplanetary diskSnow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since the discovery of the multiring structure of the HL Tau disk, ALMA data suggest that the dust continuum emission of many, if not all, protoplanetary disks consists of rings and gaps, no matter their spectral type or age. The origin of these gaps so far remains unclear. We present a sample study of 16 disks with multiple ring-like structures in the continuum, using published ALMA archival data, to compare their morphologies and gap locations in a systematic way. The 16 targets range from early- to late-type stars, from <0.5 Myr to >10 Myr and from ∼0.2 to 40 L ⊙ , and include both full and transitional disks with cleared inner dust cavities. Stellar ages are revised using new Gaia distances. Gap locations are derived using a simple radial fit to the intensity profiles. Using a radiative transfer model, the temperature profiles are computed. The gap radii generally do not correspond to the orbital radii of snow lines of the most common molecules. A snow line model can likely be discarded as a common origin of multiring systems. In addition, there are no systematic trends in the gap locations that could be related to resonances of planets. Finally, the outer radius of the disks decreases for the oldest disks in the sample, indicating that if multiring disks evolve in a similar way, outer dust rings either dissipate with the gas or grow into planetesimal belts.

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 score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations153
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207