MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406933253 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9f2c

Vortex-induced Rings and Gaps within Protoplanetary Disks

2025· article· en· W4406933253 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xiaoyi Ma, Pinghui Huang, Cong Yu, Ruobing Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsProtoplanetary diskVortexAstrophysicsAstronomyAccretion discAstrobiologyPlanetMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Observations of protoplanetary disks have revealed the presence of both crescent-shaped and ring-like structures in dust continuum emission. These crescents are thought to arise from dust-trapping vortices generated by the Rossby wave instability, which induces density waves akin to those caused by planets. These vortices have the potential to create gaps and rings within the disk, resulting from the dissipation of their density waves. We carry out 2D hydrodynamic simulations in the shearing box to investigate vortex–disk interaction. We find that long-lived vortices can produce dust rings and gaps in inviscid discs detectable by the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array, and a more elongated vortex produces rings at larger separations. Vortex-induced density waves carry over 2 orders of magnitude higher angular momentum flux compared to planet-induced ones that shock at the same location, making the former much more effective at producing dust gaps and rings far away.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→