Rotational Dynamics of the Inner Satellites of Jupiter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract— The article considers the attitude stability of synchronous rotation and the most significant relativistic effects in the rotational dynamics of the inner satellites of Jupiter: Metis (J16), Adrastea (J15), Amalthea (J5), and Thebe (J14). It is established that the plane synchronous rotation of all inner satellites of Jupiter for the most probable values of the parameters of their shapes is stable with respect to tilting the axis of rotation. For the first time, the most significant secular, periodic, and mixed terms of the geodetic rotation of the inner satellites of Jupiter in the Euler angles relative to their own coordinate systems and in the angles of their rotation with respect to the fixed equator of the Earth and the vernal equinox (for the J2000.0 epoch) are determined. It is shown that there are objects in the Solar System with significant geodetic rotation caused primarily by their proximity to the perturbing central body rather than its mass. In particular, the value of the geodetic precession of the inner satellites of Jupiter (for which Jupiter is a less massive perturbing central body than the Sun) is 105 times greater than that of Jupiter rotating around its more massive central body (the Sun) and comparable with their precession in Newton approximation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".