Small Solar System objects on highly inclined orbits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. Less than one percent of the discovered small Solar System objects have highly inclined orbits (i > 60°), and revolve around the Sun on near-polar or retrograde orbits. The origin and evolutionary history of these objects are not yet clear. Aims. In this work we study the surface properties and orbital dynamics of selected high-inclination objects. Methods. BVRI photometric observations were performed in 2019–2020 using the 2.0 m telescope at the Terskol Observatory and the 2.6 m telescope at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory. Additionally, we searched for high-inclination objects in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and Pan-STARRS. The dynamics of the selected objects was studied using numerical simulations. Results. We obtained new photometric observations of six high-inclination objects (468861) 2013 LU28, (517717) 2015 KZ120, 2020 EP, A/2019 U5 (A/PanSTARRS), C/2018 DO4 (Lemmon), and C/2019 O3 (Palomar). All of the objects have similar B−V, V −R, R−I colours, which are close to those of moderately red TNOs and grey Centaurs. The photometric data that were extracted from the all-sky surveys also correspond to moderately red surfaces of high-inclination objects. No signs of ultra-red material on the surface of high-inclination asteroids were found, which supports the results of previous works. The comet C/2018 DO4 (Lemmon) revealed some complex morphology with structures that could be associated with particles that were ejected from the cometary nucleus. Its value of the parameter Afρ is around 100 cm for the aperture size of 6000 km. The value of Afρ for the hyperbolic comet C/2019 O3 (Palomar) is much larger, and is in the range from 2000 to 3700 cm for the aperture sizes from 25 000 to 60 000 km. For objects 2013 LU28, 2015 KZ120, and 2020 EP we estimated future and past lifetimes on their orbits. It appears that the orbits of considered objects are strongly chaotic, and with the available accuracy of the orbital elements no reliable predictions can be made about their distant past or future. The lifetimes of high-inclination objects turned out to be highly non-sensitive to the precision of the orbital elements, and to the Yarkovsky orbital drift.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".