MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312133955 · doi:10.1088/1361-6404/acaad8

The fundamental concepts of the gravity-assist manoeuvre

2022· article· en· W4312133955 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsSpacecraftPlanetAerospace engineeringExtension (predicate logic)Simple (philosophy)SatelliteJupiter (rocket family)Theoretical physicsAstronomyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A typical undergraduate course in mechanics does not cover the fascinating and important gravity-assist manoeuvre that allows satellites or other spacecrafts to navigate through our solar system on efficient and desired paths. Instead, it usually remains a mystery to students how energy is conserved when a spacecraft gains speed as it flies past a planet. Indeed, one might be led to believe that the curved path of the planet is the root cause for the gain in speed, requiring consideration of gravity-assist within the framework of the restricted three-body problem. This contribution will emphasize that this extension is not required to explain the gain in kinetic energy. Instead, a simple, scaffolded analysis of the planet-satellite system alone, using elementary physics, two reference frames and analytical methods, provides a sufficient explanation. Our simplified analysis is successfully validated against mission data from Voyager 2's gravity-assist manoeuvre around Jupiter.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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