MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3214500067 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1a72

Tidal Response and Shape of Hot Jupiters

2021· article· en· W3214500067 on OpenAlexaff
S. M. Wahl, Daniel Thorngren, Tiger Lu, Burkhard Militzer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsHot JupiterPlanetAstrophysicsExoplanetGas giantLight curveAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study the response of hot Jupiters to a static tidal perturbation using the concentric MacLaurin spheroid method. For strongly irradiated planets, we first performed radiative transfer calculations to relate the planet’s equilibrium temperature, T eq, to its interior entropy. We then determined the gravity harmonics, shape, moment of inertia, and static Love numbers for a range of two-layer interior models that assume a rocky core plus a homogeneous and isentropic envelope composed of hydrogen, helium, and heavier elements. We identify general trends and then study HAT-P-13b, the WASP planets 4b, 12b, 18b, 103b, and 121b, and Kepler-75b and CoRot-3b. We compute the Love numbers, k nm , and transit radius correction, ΔR, which we compare with predictions in the literature. We find that the Love number, k 22, of tidally locked giant planets cannot exceed a value of 0.6, and that the high T eq consistent with strongly irradiated hot Jupiters tends to further lower k 22. While most tidally locked planets are well described by a linear regime response of k 22 = 3J 2/q 0 (where q 0 is the rotation parameter of the gravitational potential), for extreme cases such as WASP-12b, WASP-103b, and WASP-121b, nonlinear effects can account for over 10% of the predicted k 22. The k 22 values larger than 0.6, as they have been reported for planets WASP-4b and HAT-P13B, cannot result from a static tidal response without extremely rapid rotation and thus are inconsistent with their expected tidally locked state.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→