MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195105893 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2351

Radar observations of the daytime β-Taurids and ζ-Perseids

2021· article· en· W3195105893 on OpenAlexaffabout
R Logan Dewsnap, M. Campbell‐Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsMeteoroidDaytimeMeteor (satellite)AstrophysicsAtmosphere (unit)Atmospheric sciencesOrbit (dynamics)MeteorologyAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We measure the activity, orbital characteristics, and mass index of the strongest daytime Taurid meteor showers (ζ-Perseids and β-Taurids) as observed by the Canadian Meteor Orbit Radar during 2002–2020. This survey recorded ∼2 × 104 stream orbits and more than 4 × 104 single-station events with speed measurements, for meteoroids with masses ${\sim }1 \times 10^{-7}{\, \mathrm{kg}}$ and sizes ${\sim }5 \times 10^{-4}\, \mathrm{m}$. ζ-Perseid activity occurred during the interval 56○ ≤ λ⊙ ≤ 92○ and peaked at λ⊙ = 77.0○, while the β-Taurids were active during the overlapping period 85○ ≤ λ⊙ ≤ 103○ and peaked at λ⊙ = 95.0○. The corrected out-of-atmosphere velocities at these activity peaks were 26.4 and 26.3 km s−1, respectively. The showers display a broad period of activity with an asymmetric profile, with a gradual increase at the beginning and a sharper decrease after the peak. The mass indices of the ζ-Perseids and β-Taurids during their periods of activity were found to be 1.81 ± 0.05 and 1.87 ± 0.05, with the ζ-Perseids reaching a minimum of 1.71 ± 0.05 around the peak of activity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207