MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963065520 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab3651

OSSOS. XIX. Testing Early Solar System Dynamical Models Using OSSOS Centaur Detections

2019· article· en· W2963065520 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsCentaurNeptuneSolar SystemTrans-Neptunian objectPlanetesimalAsteroidPopulationJupiter (rocket family)Nice model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We use published models of the early solar system evolution with a slow, long-range and grainy migration of Neptune to predict the orbital element distributions and the number of modern-day Centaurs. The model distributions are biased by the Outer Solar System Origins Survey (OSSOS) simulator and compared with the OSSOS Centaur detections. We find an excellent match to the observed orbital distribution, including the wide range of orbital inclinations which was the most troublesome characteristic to fit in previous models. A dynamical model, in which the original population of outer disk planetesimals was calibrated from Jupiter trojans, is used to predict that OSSOS should detect 11 ± 4 Centaurs with semimajor axes of a < 30 au, perihelion distances of q > 7.5 au, and diameter of D > 10 km (absolute magnitude H r < 13.7 for a 6% albedo). This is consistent with 15 actual OSSOS Centaur detections with H r < 13.7. The population of Centaurs is estimated to be 21,000 ± 8000 for D > 10 km. The inner scattered disk at 50 < a < 200 au should contain (2.0 ± 0.8) × 10 7 D > 10 km bodies and the Oort cloud should contain (5.0 ± 1.9) × 10 8 D > 10 km comets. Population estimates for different diameter cutoffs can be obtained from the size distribution of Jupiter trojans ( N (> D ) ∝ D −2.1 for 5 < D < 100 km). We discuss model predictions for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope observations of Centaurs.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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