Erratum: Atmospheric mass loss from high velocity giant impacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report and correct a mistake with the numerical results presented in the original paper (Yalinewich & Schlichting 2019). In the original paper, we tracked the velocities in the wrong positions: instead of a series of points on the surface of the planet, the velocity was tracked on a series of points below the surface. Therefore, although there was no error with the simulation itself, there was a mistake in the diagnostic function. In order to correct this mistake we ran the simulations again, this time with the diagnostics properly implemented. Below we discuss the affected parts in the original paper and present the corrected results and figures where relevant. Corrected version of fig. 2 in the original paper. The ground velocity measured perpendicular to the surface of the target at different latitudes for different impactor sizes. The velocity is normalised by the impact velocity, and the radius of the impactor is normalised by the radius of the target. The top panel shows the results in a linear scale, while the bottom panel shows the same results in a logarithmic scale. Corrected version of fig. 2 in the original paper. The ground velocity measured perpendicular to the surface of the target at different latitudes for different impactor sizes. The velocity is normalised by the impact velocity, and the radius of the impactor is normalised by the radius of the target. The top panel shows the results in a linear scale, while the bottom panel shows the same results in a logarithmic scale. Corrected version of fig. 4 in the original paper. A comparison between the universal curve (equation 1) and the numerical results for the case Ri/Rt = 0.05. Corrected version of fig. 4 in the original paper. A comparison between the universal curve (equation 1) and the numerical results for the case Ri/Rt = 0.05. Corrected version of fig. 8 in the original paper. Fraction of the atmosphere lost as a result of a giant collision, as a function of the mass and velocity of the impactor. The radius of the impactor is normalised by the radius of the target, and the velocity is normalised by the escape velocity. The bottom panel zooms in on the small impactor to target size regime and displays the mass loss in a logarithmic scale. Corrected version of fig. 8 in the original paper. Fraction of the atmosphere lost as a result of a giant collision, as a function of the mass and velocity of the impactor. The radius of the impactor is normalised by the radius of the target, and the velocity is normalised by the escape velocity. The bottom panel zooms in on the small impactor to target size regime and displays the mass loss in a logarithmic scale. The corrected results yield lower ground velocities at the same latitude, and hence the atmospheric mass loss is somewhat lower compared with the previous results. Therefore, whereas our previous results consistently predicted higher atmospheric mass loss compared to other numerical simulations, the corrected results presented here yield slightly lower net loss than reported by other studies. Overall, the differences between the old and new results is relatively small, and the main conclusions of the original paper remain unchanged.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.031 |
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".