A dynamical analysis of the Taurid Complex: evidence for past orbital convergences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The goal of this work is to determine if the dynamics of individual Taurid Complex (TC) objects are consistent with the formation of the complex via fragmentation of a larger body, or if the current orbital affinities between the TC members result from other dynamical processes. To this end, the orbital similarity through the time of comet 2P/Encke, 51 near-Earth asteroids (NEAs), and 16 Taurid fireballs was explored. Clones of each body were numerically simulated backwards in time, and epochs when significant fractions of the clones of any two bodies approached each other with both a low Minimum Orbit Intersection Distance and small relative velocity were identified. Only 12 pairs of bodies in our sample show such an association in the past 20 000 yr, primarily circa 3200 BCE. These include 2P/Encke and NEAs 2004 TG10, 2005 TF50, 2005 UR, 2015 TX24, and several Southern Taurid fireballs. We find this orbital convergence to be compatible with the fragmentation of a large parent body 5000–6000 yr ago, resulting in the separation of 2P/Encke and several NEAs associated with the TC, as well as some larger meteoroids now recorded in the Taurid stream. However, the influence of purely dynamical processes may offer an alternative explanation for this orbital rapprochement without requiring a common origin between these objects. In order to discriminate between these two hypotheses, future spectral surveys of the TC asteroids are required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".