Crater Morphometry and Scaling in Coarse, Rubble-Like Targets: Insights from Impact Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spacecraft images reveal that the asteroids Itokawa, Ryugu, and Bennu are covered with coarse, boulder-rich material [1–3]. Impactors that collide with these bodies encounter a target with extreme physical heterogeneity. Other bodies can also possess significant physical heterogeneity (e.g., megaregolith, layering, etc.). Such heterogeneities establish free surfaces and impedance contrasts that can affect shock propagation and attenuation. Therefore, such heterogeneities may also affect crater formation and excavation [4], melt generation [5–7] and crater scaling [4]. As described by [8,9], the extent to which target heterogeneity affects crater formation likely depends on how the length scale, d, of the heterogeneity (e.g., boulder size on a rubble-pile asteroid) compares to the width of the shock, w, generated by impact. Here we further test this hypothesis using impact experiments across a broad range of impact velocities and target grain sizes to systematically vary the ratio between the width of the shock and the diameter of target grains.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".