A possible divot in the size distribution of the Kuiper belt's scattering objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Via joint analysis of a calibrated telescopic survey, which found scattering Kuiper Belt objects, and models of their expected orbital distribution, we measure the form of the scattering object's size distribution. Ruling out a single power-law at greater than 99% confidence, we constrain the form of the size distribution and find that, surprisingly, our analysis favours a very sudden decrease (a divot) in the number distribution as diameters decrease below 100 km, with the number of smaller objects then rising again as expected via collisional equilibrium. Extrapolating at this collisional equilibrium slope produced enough kilometer-scale scattering objects to supply the nearby Jupiter-Family comets. Our interpretation is that this divot feature is a preserved relic of the size distribution made by planetesimal formation, now "frozen in" to portions of the Kuiper Belt sharing a "hot" orbital inclination distribution, explaining several puzzles in Kuiper Belt science. Additionally, we show that to match today's scattering-object inclination distribution, the supply source that was scattered outward must have already been vertically heated to of order 10 degrees.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".