MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206663069 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4917

THE CANADA-FRANCE ECLIPTIC PLANE SURVEY—L3 DATA RELEASE: THE ORBITAL STRUCTURE OF THE KUIPER BELT

2009· article· en· W4206663069 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. J. Kavelaars, Lynne Jones, Brett Gladman, Jean-Marc Petit, J. W. Parker, Christa Van Laerhoven, P. D. Nicholson, P. Rousselot, H. Schöll, O. Mousis, B. G. Marsden, Paula Gabriela Benavídez, Allyson Bieryla, Adriano Campo Bagatín, A. Doressoundiram, Jean‐Luc Margot, Ian S. Murray, C. Veillet

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
FundersU.S. Department of EnergyHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsEclipticPhysicsTrans-Neptunian objectAstronomyAstrophysicsPopulationEccentricity (behavior)Orbit (dynamics)AsteroidDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the orbital distribution of the trans-Neptunian comets discovered during the first discovery year of the Canada–France Ecliptic Plane Survey (CFEPS). CFEPS is a Kuiper Belt object survey based on observations acquired by the Very Wide component of the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (LS-VW). The first year's detections consist of 73 Kuiper Belt objects, 55 of which have now been tracked for three years or more, providing precise orbits. Although this sample size is small compared to the world-wide inventory, because we have an absolutely calibrated and extremely well-characterized survey (with known pointing history) we are able to de-bias our observed population and make unbiased statements about the intrinsic orbital distribution of the Kuiper Belt. By applying the (publically available) CFEPS Survey Simulator to models of the true orbital distribution and comparing the resulting simulated detections to the actual detections made by the survey, we are able to rule out several hypothesized Kuiper Belt object orbit distributions. We find that the main classical belt's so-called 'cold' component is confined in semimajor axis (a) and eccentricity (e) compared to the more extended "hot" component; the cold component is confined to lower e and does not stretch all the way out to the 2:1 resonance but rather depletes quickly beyond a = 45 AU. For the cold main classical belt population we find a robust population estimate of N ( H g < 10) = 50 ± 5 × 10 3 and find that the hot component of the main classical belt represents ∼60% of the total population. The inner classical belt (sunward of the 3:2 mean-motion resonance) has a population of roughly 2000 trans-Neptunian objects with absolute magnitudes H g < 10, and may not share the inclination distribution of the main classical belt. We also find that the plutino population lacks a cold low-inclination component, and so, the population is somewhat larger than recent estimates; our analysis shows a plutino population of N ( H g < 10)∼ 25 +25 −12 × 10 3 compared to our estimate of the size of main classical Kuiper Belt population of N ( H g < 10) ∼ (126 +50 −46 ) × 10 3 .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations95
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207