Observability of forming planets and their circumplanetary discs – IV. With <i>JWST</i> and ELT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT To understand the potential for observing forming planets and their circumplanetary discs (CPDs) with James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and Extremely Large Telescope (ELT), we created mock observations from three-dimensional radiative hydrodynamic simulations and radiative transfer post-processing for planets with 10, 5, and 1 Jupiter and 1 Saturn masses with orbital separation of 50 and 30 au in 0, 30, and 60○ inclinations. Instrumental effects were then simulated with Mirage for JWST/NIRCam and NIRISS, MIRISim for JWST/MIRI, and SimCADO and SimMETIS for ELT/MICADO and METIS. We found that the longer wavelengths (mid-infrared and beyond) are the best to detect CPDs, since they allow CPD of planet with smaller mass to be detected. MIRI on JWST and METIS on ELT offer the best possibility on these telescopes. Specifically, below 3 $\mu{\rm m}$, only 10 MJup planets with their CPDs are detectable with NIRCam and MICADO. 5 MJup planets are only detectable if at 30 au (i.e. closer) orbital separation. Planets above 5 MJup with their CPDs are detectable between 3 and 5 $\mu{\rm m}$ with NIRCam and METIS L/M band, or above 10 $\mu{\rm m}$ with MIRI and METIS N band. For ≤1 MJup planets >15 $\mu{\rm m}$ are needed, where MIRI uniquely offers imaging capability. We present magnitudes and spectral energy distributions for separate components of the planet + CPD + circumstellar disc (CSD) system, to differentiate the extinction rates of CPDs and CSDs and to provide predictions for observational proposals. Because the CPD turns out to be the main absorber of the planet’s emission, especially <10 $\mu{\rm m}$, this makes the detection of forming planets quite challenging.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".