MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915381923 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba521

Limits on Protoplanet Growth by Accretion of Small Solids

2020· article· en· W2915381923 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamad Ali-Dib, Christopher Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPebbleSublimation (psychology)PhysicsAstrophysicsDebrisTurbulenceRADIUSAccretion (finance)OpacityMechanicsMeteorologyGeologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper identifies constraints on the growth of a small planetary core (0.3 M ⊕ ) that accretes millimeter-sized pebbles from a gaseous disk. We construct time-dependent spherical envelope models that capture physical processes that are not included in existing global hydrodynamic simulations, including particle size evolution, dust transport, and realistic gas equations of state. We assume a low enough disk density that pebbles are marginally coupled to the gas and are trapped efficiently near the core Bondi radius. Pebbles then drift rapidly enough to experience erosion by sandblasting, mutual collisions, and sublimation of water ice. We find that pebble fragmentation is more efficient than dust resticking. Therefore the high pebble accretion rate needed to build a core of mass > M ⊕ leads to a high envelope metallicity and grain opacity. Above yr −1 , and without other luminosity sources, convective motions expand near the Bondi radius. The warm, dusty, and turbulent envelope buffers the inward drift of pebble debris: given a turbulent concentration factor f turb ≳ 1 near the lower convective boundary, the core growth rate is limited to 1 × 10 −7 f turb M ⊕ yr −1 and the e-folding time 3/ f turb Myr. The remainder of the solid debris is expelled as highly processed silicates. Pebble ice never reaches the core, and the envelope contains comparable amounts of H 2 /He and metals. We interpret our results using simpler steady models and semianalytical estimates. Future global simulations incorporating the processes modeled here are needed to understand the influence of rotation and vertical disk structure.

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 score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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