MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127059548 · doi:10.3847/psj/abd325

NEO Population, Velocity Bias, and Impact Risk from an ATLAS Analysis

2021· article· en· W3127059548 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A. Heinze, L. Denneau, J. Tonry, Steven Smartt, Nicolas Erasmus, A. Fitzsimmons, James E. Robinson, H. Weiland, H. Flewelling, B. Stalder, A. Rest, D. R. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Planetary Science Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryScience and Technology Facilities CouncilPlanetary Science DivisionScience Mission DirectorateSmithsonian Astrophysical ObservatoryMax-Planck-Institut für AstronomieEötvös Loránd TudományegyetemMax-Planck-GesellschaftNational Central UniversityGordon and Betty Moore FoundationNuclear Safety and Security CommissionSpace Telescope Science InstituteQueen's UniversityUniversity of EdinburghJohns Hopkins UniversityQueen's University BelfastNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationDurham UniversitySmithsonian InstitutionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAsteroidAtlas (anatomy)ExtrapolationSolar SystemPopulationNear-Earth objectAstrophysicsPhysicsAstronomyGeographyEclipticStatisticsGeologyDemographyMathematicsPaleontologySolar wind

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We estimate the total population of near-Earth objects (NEOs) in the solar system using an extensive, “solar-system-to-pixels” fake-asteroid simulation to debias detections of real NEOs by the ATLAS survey. Down to absolute magnitudes H = 25 and 27.6 (diameters of ∼34 and 10 m, respectively, for 15% albedo), we find total populations of (3.72 ± 0.49) × 105 and (1.59 ± 0.45) × 107 NEOs, respectively. Most of the plausible sources of error tend toward underestimation, so the true populations are likely larger. We find the distribution of H magnitudes steepens for NEOs fainter than H ∼ 22.5, making small asteroids more common than extrapolation from brighter H mags would predict. Our simulation indicates a strong bias against detecting small but dangerous asteroids that encounter Earth with high relative velocities—i.e., asteroids in highly inclined and/or eccentric orbits. Worldwide NEO discovery statistics indicate this bias affects global NEO detection capability to the point that an observational census of small asteroids in such orbits is probably not currently feasible. Prompt and aggressive followup of NEO candidates, combined with closer collaborations between segments of the global NEO community, can increase detection rates for these dangerous objects.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Planetary Science JournalSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207