The NCORES programme: precise planetary masses, null results, and insight into the planet mass distribution near the radius gap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT NCORES was a large observing programme on the ESO HARPS spectrograph, dedicated to measuring the masses of Neptune-like and smaller transiting planets discovered by the TESS satellite using the radial velocity technique. This paper presents an overview of the programme, its scientific goals and published results, covering 35 planets in 18 planetary systems. We present spectrally derived stellar characterization and mass constraints for five additional TOIs where radial velocity observations found only marginally significant signals (TOI-510.01, $M_p = 1.08^{+0.58}_{-0.55}{\rm M}_{\rm{\oplus }}$), or found no signal (TOIs 271.01, 641.01, 697.01, and 745.01). A newly detected non-transiting radial velocity candidate is presented orbiting TOI-510 on a 10.0 d orbit, with a minimum mass of $4.82^{+1.29}_{-1.26}{\rm M}_{\rm{\oplus }}$, although uncertainties on the system architecture and true orbital period remain. Combining the NCORES sample with archival known planets, we investigate the distribution of planet masses and compositions around and below the radius gap, finding that the population of planets below the gap is consistent with a rocky composition and ranges up to a sharp cut-off at $10M_{\rm{\oplus }}$. We compare the observed distribution to models of pebble- and planetesimal-driven formation and evolution, finding good broad agreement with both models while highlighting interesting areas of potential discrepancy. Increased numbers of precisely measured planet masses in this parameter space are required to distinguish between pebble and planetesimal accretion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".