Compositional turbulence and layering in the gaseous envelopes of forming planets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Differential settling and growth of dust grains impact the structure of the radiative envelopes of gaseous planets during formation. Sufficiently rapid dust growth can result in envelopes with substantially reduced opacities for radiation transport, thereby facilitating planet formation. We revisit the problem and establish that dust settling and grain growth also lead to outer planetary envelopes that are prone to compositional instabilities, by virtue of their inverted mean-molecular weight gradients. Under a variety of conditions, we find that the radiative envelopes of forming planets experience compositional turbulence driven by a semi-transparent version of the thermohaline instability (’fingering convection’). The standard double-diffusive thermohaline theory does not apply here and is replaced by a simplified first-principle treatment for the semitransparent regime of interest. The compositional turbulence seems efficient at mixing dust in the radiative envelopes of planets forming at super-au distances (say 5 au) from a Sun-like star, but not so at sub-au distances (say 0.2 au). We also address the possibility of compositional layering in this context. Distinct turbulent regimes for planetary envelopes growing at sub-au versus super-au distances could leave an imprint on the final planets formed.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".