MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4310808865 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9cda

Rocky Histories: The Effect of High Excitations on the Formation of Rocky Planets

2022· article· en· W4310808865 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Scora, Diana Valencia, Alessandro Morbidelli, Seth A. Jacobson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsAstrobiologyPlanetAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rocky planets both in and outside of our solar system are observed to have a range of core-mass fractions (CMFs). Imperfect collisions can preferentially strip mantle material from a planet, changing its CMF, and are therefore thought to be the most likely cause of this observed CMF variation. However, previous work that implements these collisions into N-body simulations of planet formation has struggled to reliably form high CMF super-Earths. In this work, we specify our initial conditions and simulation parameters to maximize the prevalence of high-energy, CMF-changing collisions in order to form planets with highly diverse CMFs. High-energy collisions have a large v imp/v esc ratio, so we maximize this ratio by starting simulations with high eccentricity and inclination disks to increase the difference in their orbital velocities, maximizing v imp. Additionally, we minimize v esc by starting with small embryos. The final planets undergo more high-energy, debris-producing collisions, and experience significant CMF change over their formation. However, we find that a number of processes work together to average out the CMF of a planet over time; therefore, we do not consistently form high CMF, high-mass planets. We do form high CMF planets below 0.5 M ⊕. Additionally, we find, in these highly eccentric environments, loss of debris mass due to collisional grinding has a significant effect on final planet masses and CMFs, resulting in smaller planets and a higher average planet CMF. This work highlights the importance of improving measurements of high-density planets to better constrain their CMFs.

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)0.006
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstro and Planetary Science→French-language works237,207→