MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290987305 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042249

Dust distribution in protoplanetary disks

2005· article· en· W4290987305 on OpenAlexaff
Laure Barrière-Fouchet, Jean-François Gonzalez, J. R. Murray, Robin Humble, Sarah Maddison

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsDragAstrophysicsAccretion (finance)Angular momentumPlanetProtoplanetary diskGrain sizeParticle-size distributionGrain growthMechanicsParticle sizeClassical mechanicsChemistryGeologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the results of a three dimensional, locally isothermal, non-self-gravitating SPH code which models protoplanetary disks with two fluids: gas and dust. We ran simulations of a 1 star surrounded by a 0.01 disk comprising 99% gas and 1% dust in mass and extending from 0.5 to AU. The grain size ranges from 10-6 m to 10 m for the low resolution ( SPH particles) simulations and from 10-4 m to 10 cm for the high resolution ( SPH particles) simulations. Dust grains are slowed down by the sub-Keplerian gas and lose angular momentum, forcing them to migrate towards the central star and settle to the midplane. The gas drag efficiency varies according to the grain size, with the larger bodies being weakly influenced and following marginally perturbed Keplerian orbits, while smaller grains are strongly coupled to the gas. For intermediate sized grains, the drag force decouples the dust and gas, allowing the dust to preferentially migrate radially and efficiently settle to the midplane. The resulting dust distributions for each grain size will indicate, when grain growth is added, the regions when planets are likely to form.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations83
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207