Asteroid (354) Eleonora: Plucking an Odd Duck
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During a survey of the S-type asteroids, Gaffey et al. (Gaffey, M.J., Bell, J.F., Brown, R.H., Burbine, T.H., Piatek, J., Reed, K.L., Chaky, D.A. [1993]. Icarus 106, 573–602) identified Asteroid (354) Eleonora as anomalous with a 1 μm absorption feature ∼2.5 times stronger than any S-asteroid of comparable size. Subsequent investigation revealed significant differences in the 1 μm absorption feature between the visible & very near-infrared CCD spectra (λ < ∼1.0 μm) and other spectral data sets for this asteroid. There were also significant spectral differences among the several CCD survey spectra (SMASS-I, SMASS-II & S3OS2) of Eleonora. These differences could potentially arise from spectral variations across the asteroid surface, from observational phase angle differences, from surface temperature differences, from viewing geometry for a nonspherical body, or from the use of standard stars with deviated to different degrees from a true solar standard. In June 2011 Asteroid (354) Eleonora was observed over two nights using the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF) at Mauna Kea Observatory in order to test these possible scenarios and to better understand the nature and history of Eleonora and its relationships to other asteroids and to the meteorites. Analysis of this data set has eliminated the following options as the cause of the differences in the 1 μm absorption feature within the CCD data sets and between the CCD data sets and the other spectral data: (1) rotational spectral variations; (2) variation in surface composition with latitude; (3) observation phase; (4) surface temperature variations with differing heliocentric distance in the asteroid’s elliptical orbit; (5) spectral effects of viewing geometry for a nonspherical body; and (6) differences in spectral standard stars. We conclude that none of the CCD spectra of (354) Eleonora are reliable, and that within the limits of their spectral coverage, analyses of the three CCD spectra would produce significantly different – and generally unreliable – indications of surface mineralogy. An effort needs to be made to determine whether “bad” CCD spectra are rare with the case of (354) Eleonora being an uncommon occurrence or whether there is a broader problem with the CCD asteroid survey data sets, and if so, how to identify the “bad” spectra. While CCD survey spectra show apparently irreconcilable differences, the near-infrared spectra of (354) Eleonora from various observers show only minor differences, primarily in the overall spectral slope, most of which can be attributed to slight differences in the standard stars used to calibrate the data. In June 2011, 226 near-infrared (∼0.76–2.5 μm) spectra of (354) Eleonora were obtained using the SpeX instrument on the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility at Mauna Kea Observatory. These spectra were consistent with the six sets of NIR spectra obtained for Eleonora by previous observers. The primary variation observed in this new data set was an approximately 10% variation in spectral slope between ∼0.8 μm and ∼1.6 μm during the rotation period of the asteroid. Mineralogically diagnostic spectral parameters extracted from this new data are most consistent with a surface assemblage of fine-grained intimately mixed olivine (∼60–70%, ∼Fo61–71) and low nickel (
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".