Activity of the Eta-Aquariid and Orionid meteor showers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims.We present a multi-instrumental, multidecadal analysis of the activity of the Eta-Aquariid and Orionid meteor showers for the purpose of constraining models of 1P/Halley’s meteoroid streams. Methods.The interannual variability of the showers’ peak activity and period of duration is investigated through the compilation of published visual and radar observations prior to 1985 and more recent measurements reported in the International Meteor Organization (IMO) Visual Meteor DataBase, by the IMO Video Meteor Network and by the Canadian Meteor Orbit Radar (CMOR). These techniques probe the range of meteoroid masses from submilligrams to grams. Theη-Aquariids and Orionids activity duration, shape, maximum zenithal hourly rates values, and the solar longitude of annual peaks since 1985 are analyzed. When available, annual activity profiles recorded by each detection network were measured and are compared. Results.Observations from the three detection methods show generally good agreement in the showers’ shape, activity levels, and annual intensity variations. Both showers display several activity peaks of variable location and strength with time. Theη-Aquariids are usually two to three times stronger than the Orionids, but the two showers display occasional outbursts with peaks two to four times their usual activity level. CMOR observations since 2002 seem to support the existence of an ~12 yr cycle in Orionids activity variations; however, additional and longer term radar and optical observations of the shower are required to confirm such periodicity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".