Determining the population of large meteoroids in major meteor showers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have estimated the largest meteoroids present in major meteor showers from observations conducted between 2019-2022 by the Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) instrument on the GOES-R satellites. Our integrated time area products for the Leonids, Perseids and eta Aquariids are of order 5 × 1010 km2 hours. We compute photometric masses for shower fireballs using the approach of Vojáček et al. (2022) to correct from narrow-band GLM luminosity to bolometric luminosity and apply the luminous efficiency relation of Ceplecha & McCrosky (1976) at high speeds. Between 2019 and 2022, the showers definitely observed by GLM were the Leonids, Perseids, and eta Aquariids, with probable detections of the Orionids and Taurids. We find the largest meteoroids to be of order 7 kg for the Leonids, 3 kg for the Perseids, and 3 kg for the eta Aquariids, corresponding to meteoroids of ≈0.2 m diameter. The Orionids and Taurids had maximum meteoroid masses of 4 kg and 150 kg respectively. The Leonids and eta Aquariids are well fit by a single power-law with differential mass exponent, s, of 2.08 ± 0.08 and 2.00 ± 0.09 over the mass range 10−7 < m < 1 kg. All showers had maximum meteoroid masses compatible with Whipple gas-drag ejection, with the exception of the Perseids which have much larger meteoroids than expected a result also consistent with observations from ground based instruments. This may reflect preferential ejection in narrow jets or possibly some form of mantle erosion/release in the past for the parent comet, 109P/Swift-Tuttle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".