MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982506561 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab48fa

The Flux Distribution and Sky Density of 25th Magnitude Main Belt Asteroids

2019· article· en· W2982506561 on OpenAlexaff
A. Heinze, Joseph Trollo, Stanimir Metchev

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsAsteroidMagnitude (astronomy)Flux (metallurgy)AstronomySkyAstrophysicsAsteroid belt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Digital tracking enables telescopes to detect asteroids several times fainter than conventional techniques. We describe our optimized methodology to acquire, process, and interpret digital tracking observations, and we apply it to probe the apparent magnitude distribution of main belt asteroids fainter than any previously detected from the ground. All-night integrations with the Dark Energy Camera (DECam) yield 95% completeness at R magnitude 25.0 and useful sensitivity to R = 25.6 mag when we use an analytical detection model to correct flux overestimation bias. In a single DECam field observed over two nights, we detect a total of 3234 distinct asteroids, of which 3123 are confirmed on both nights. At opposition from the Sun, we find a sky density of 697 ± 15 asteroids per square degree brighter than R = 25.0 mag, and 1031 ± 23 brighter than R = 25.6 mag. We agree with published results for the sky density and apparent magnitude distribution of asteroids brighter than R = 23 mag. For a power law defined by dN / dR ∝ 10 αR , we find marginally acceptable fits with a constant slope α =0.28 ± 0.02 from R = 20 to 25.6 mag. Better fits are obtained for a broken power law with α = 0.218 ± 0.026 for R = 20–23.5 mag, steepening to α = 0.340 ± 0.025 for R = 23.5–25.6 mag. The constant or steepening power law indicates that asteroids fainter than R = 23.5 mag are abundant, contrary to some previous claims but consistent with theory.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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