MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3123036762

Orbit Estimation for Late Warning Asteroid Impacts: The Case of 2014 AA

2014· article· en· W3123036762 on OpenAlexaff
Steven R. Chesley, Davide Farnocchia, Peter Brown, P. W. Chodas

Bibliographic record

VenueAAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts #46 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsteroidSkyRange (aeronautics)Orbit (dynamics)Near-Earth objectGeodesyGeologyGeographyAstronomyComputer scienceRemote sensingPhysicsAerospace engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a computational technique to assess the near-term Earth impact hazard posed by newly discovered asteroids. In these late warning cases the observational data sets will often include only an hour or so of tracking, leading to a severe degeneracy in the orbit estimation. The systematic ranging approach attacks this problem by exploring the poorly-constrained space of geocentric range and range rate, while the plane of sky position and motion is readily derived from the recorded observations. A raster scan in the two-dimensional range-range rate space allows us to identify regions corresponding to collision solutions, from which we derive rigorous impact probabilities, as well as potential impact times and locations. As an example, we shall consider the case of 2014 AA, a small asteroid that was discovered from Arizona by the Catalina Sky Survey early on January 1, 2014, and—as evidenced by infrasound monitoring—impacted the Atlantic Ocean less than a day later.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts #46→Same topicearthquake and tectonic studies→French-language works237,207→