MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916174987 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab24d0

PDS 70: A Transition Disk Sculpted by a Single Planet

2019· article· en· W2916174987 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlanetExoplanetEccentricity (behavior)Accretion (finance)Orbital eccentricitySuper-EarthHot JupiterRadiative transferGas giant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The wide, deep cavities of transition disks are often believed to have been hollowed out by nascent planetary systems. PDS 70, a ∼5 Myr old transition disk system in which a multi-Jupiter-mass planet candidate at 22 au coexists with a ∼30 au gas and ∼60 au dust-continuum gap, provides a valuable case study for this hypothesis. Using the PEnGUIn hydrodynamics code, we simulate the orbital evolution and accretion of PDS 70b in its natal disk. When the accreting planet reaches about 2.5 Jupiter masses, it spontaneously grows in eccentricity and consumes material from a wide swathe of the PDS 70 disk; radiative transfer post-processing with DALI shows that this accurately reproduces the observed gap profile. Our results demonstrate that super-Jupiter planets can single-handedly carve out transition disk cavities, and indicate that the high eccentricities measured for such giants may be a natural consequence of disk–planet interaction.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.192
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 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

Citations37
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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