MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101717949 · doi:10.1051/eas/1041016

From Grains to Planetesimals

2010· article· en· W3101717949 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew N. Youdin

Bibliographic record

VenueEAS Publications Series · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlanetesimalPhysicsDragProtoplanetAerodynamic dragTurbulenceGravitational collapseFormation and evolution of the Solar SystemVortexProtoplanetary diskMechanicsPlanetAstrophysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This pedagogical review covers an unsolved problem in the theory of protoplanetary disks: the growth of dust grains into planetesimals, solids at least a kilometer in size. I summarize timescale constraints imposed on planetesimal formation by circumstellar disk observations, analysis of meteorites, and aerodynamic radial migration. The infall of ≲ meter-sized solids in a hundred years is the most stringent constraint. I review proposed mechanisms for planetesimal formation. Collisional coagulation models are informed by laboratory studies of microgravity collisions. The gravitational collapse (or Safronov-Goldreich-Ward) hypothesis involves detailed study of the interaction between solid particles and turbulent gas. I cover the basics of aerodynamic drag in protoplanetary disks, including radial drift and vertical sedimentation. I describe various mechanisms for particle concentration in gas disks – including turbulent pressure maxima, drag instabilities and long-lived anticylonic vortices. I derive a general result for the minimum size for a vortex to trap particles in a sub-Keplerian disk. Recent numerical simulations demonstrate that particle clumping in turbulent protoplanetary disks can trigger gravitational collapse. I discuss several outstanding issues in the field.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations61
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEAS Publications SeriesSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207