MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963530597 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/79

BANGS AND METEORS FROM THE QUIET COMET 15P/FINLAY

2015· article· en· W2963530597 on OpenAlexaffabout
Quanzhi Ye, Peter Brown, Xing Gao, M. Mašek, Man-To Hui

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMeteor (satellite)EjectaMeteoroidMeteor showerAstrophysicsAstronomyCometSupernova

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Jupiter-family comet 15P/Finlay has been reportedly quiet in activity for over a century but has harbored two outbursts during its 2014/2015 perihelion passage. Here we present an analysis of these two outbursts using a set of cometary observations. The outbursts took place between 2014 December 15.4–16.0 UT and 2015 January 15.5–16.0 UT as constrained by ground-based and spacecraft observations. We find a characteristic ejection speed of V 0 = 300–650 m s −1 for the ejecta of the first outburst and V 0 = 550–750 m s −1 for that of the second outburst using a Monte Carlo dust model. The mass of the ejecta is calculated to be M d = (2–3) × 10 5 kg for the first outburst and M d = (4–5) × 10 5 kg for the second outburst, which corresponds to less than 10 −7 of the nucleus mass. The specific energy of the two outbursts is found to be (0.3–2) × 10 5 J kg −1 . We also revisit the long-standing puzzle of the nondetection of the hypothetical Finlayid meteor shower by performing a cued search using the 13 yr data from the Canadian Meteor Orbit Radar, which does not reveal any positives. Earth will pass the 2014/2015 outburst ejecta between 2021 October 6 at 22 hr UT and October 7 at 1 hr UT, with a chance for some significant meteor activity in the radio range, which may provide further clues to the Finlayid puzzle. A southerly radiant in the constellation of Ara will favor the observers in the southern tip of Africa.

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 score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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