MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385420387 · doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda1e

FOSSIL. III. Lightcurves of 371 Trans-Neptunian Objects

2023· article· en· W4385420387 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Ashton, Chan-Kao Chang, Ying-Tung Chen, M. J. Lehner, Shiang‐Yu Wang, Mike Alexandersen, Young-Jun 영준 Choi 최, Wesley C. Fraser, A. Paula Granados Contreras, Takashi Itô, Youngmin JeongAhn, Jianghui Ji, J. J. Kavelaars, Myung-Jin Kim, Samantha Lawler, Jian Li, Zhong-Yi Lin, Patryk Sofia Lykawka, Hong-Kyu 홍규 Moon 문, Surhud More, Marco A. Muñoz-Gutiérrez, Keiji Ohtsuki, Rosemary E. Pike, Tsuyoshi Terai, Seitaro Urakawa, Fumi Yoshida, Hui Zhang, Haibin Zhao, Ji‐Lin Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsCampion CollegeUniversity of ReginaUniversity of VictoriaHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNational Science and Technology CouncilNational Astronomical Observatory of JapanCentro de Astrofísica y Tecnologías Afines
KeywordsPhysicsAmplitudeAstrophysicsLight curveSolar SystemRotation periodAstronomyMagnitude (astronomy)Rotation (mathematics)Apparent magnitudeGeometryStarsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract From the first phase of the high-cadence Formation of the Outer Solar System: an Icy Legacy (FOSSIL) survey, we analyzed lightcurves, ranging from one to four nights in length, of 371 trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) for periodicity. We found 29 TNOs with periodic lightcurves, one of which is a good candidate for a close/contact binary. Another of the periodic FOSSIL TNOs could potentially have the fastest of all known TNO spin rates, with a period of 1.3 hr. We do not have total confidence in the period and thus plan to obtain a more detailed lightcurve for confirmation. The periodic TNOs have an average rotation period of 11.2 hr, close to the value obtained by Alexandersen et al., which had similar cadence, but different from other surveys. In regards to contention in the literature about whether smaller TNOs are more irregular in shape and thus have larger lightcurve amplitudes, we found that there is a weak correlation between absolute magnitude and lightcurve amplitude in a subset of 194 FOSSIL TNOs, even when using the more appropriate brightest (minimum) absolute magnitude instead of the time-averaged value.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement SeriesSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207