MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950300466 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stz776

Oort cloud asteroids: collisional evolution, the Nice Model, and the Grand Tack

2019· article· en· W2950300466 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Shannon, Alan P. Jackson, M. C. Wyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHorizon 2020European Research CouncilScience and Technology Facilities CouncilPennsylvania State University
KeywordsAsteroidPhysicsSolar SystemPlanetAstrobiologyNice modelAstronomyFormation and evolution of the Solar SystemCloud computingHeliocentric orbitGiant planetPlanetary systemAstrophysicsPlanetary massPlanetary migration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If the Solar system had a history of planet migration, the signature of that migration may be imprinted on the populations of asteroids and comets that were scattered in the planets’ wake. Here, we consider the dynamical and collisional evolution of the inner Solar system asteroids that join the Oort cloud. We compare the Oort cloud asteroid populations produced by migration scenarios based on the ‘Nice’ and ‘Grand Tack’ scenarios, as well as a null hypothesis where the planets have not migrated, to the detection of one such object, C/2014 S3 (PANSTARRS). Our simulations find that the discovery of C/2014 S3 (PANSTARRS) only has a |$\gt 1{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$| chance of occurring if the Oort cloud asteroids evolved on to Oort cloud orbits when the Solar system was |${\lesssim } 1\, \rm {Myr}$| old, as this early transfer to the Oort cloud is necessary to keep the amount of collisional evolution low. We argue that this only occurs when a giant (≳30m⊕) planet orbits at |$1\sim 2\, \rm {au}$|⁠, and thus our results strongly favour a ‘Grand Tack’-like migration having occurred early in the Solar system’s history.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.180
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207