Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origin and fate of most of the satellites that now orbit Neptune are reasonably well understood, but the orbital evolution of Hippocamp and Proteus is less clear. Proteus is the second largest moon of Neptune, whereas Hippocamp is much smaller. There is increasing evidence that cosmological expansion, as described by the Hubble‐Lemaître parameter, occurs in the Solar System. For Hippocamp and Proteus, orbital analysis based on local cosmological expansion shows that neither can be original moons of Neptune since both have only been outside the synchronous (stationary) orbit of Neptune for about 3.3 × 10 9 years (3.3 Gyr). It has previously been suggested that they represent the residues from the break-up of an earlier moon. Furthermore, the orbits of Hippocamp and Proteus coincided at that time. This supports earlier ideas that these two moons arose from the fragmentation of an original body. It may be noted that this epoch, i.e., 3.3 Gyr ago, is consistent with timings in those theories of the “Late Heavy Bombardment,” whereby planets and their satellites experienced major asteroid impacts long after the formation of the Solar System. These results are in conflict with the widely held view that cosmological expansion does not operate at the local level.
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".