MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129653080 · doi:10.1134/s0038094620330035

Rotational Dynamics of the Inner Satellites of Jupiter

2021· article· en· W3129653080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V. V. Pashkevich, А. Н. Вершков, Alexander Melnikov

Bibliographic record

VenueSolar System Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJupiter (rocket family)Rotational dynamicsDynamics (music)AstrobiologyPlanetary scienceOrbital mechanicsPhysicsAstronomySatelliteSpacecraft

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSolar System ResearchSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207