A Limit on the Mass of the Taurid Resonant Swarm at Sub-100 m Sizes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We report on a pencil-beam survey of the Taurid resonant swarm (TS), a possible concentration of bodies in the Taurid meteoroid stream associated with the 7:2 mean motion resonance with Jupiter. Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope MegaCam observations reaching apparent magnitudes of 24.5 in the gri filter were taken over 3 nights. Rates of motion on the sky allowed for the quick elimination of main-belt objects from the over 1000 moving sources seen. Eight candidates with on-sky rates of motion consistent with Taurids were detected, but seven were subsequently shown to be non-Taurids (Hungarias, Mars crossers, etc.). One object might be a 60 m class Taurid, but not enough data were collected and its orbit remains ambiguous. Our results are consistent with no Taurid swarm members observed, and an upper limit of fewer than 3 × 10 3 –3 × 10 4 objects down to H = 25.6 ± 0.3 (diameter of <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mn>4</mml:mn> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>7</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>13</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>29</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> </mml:math> m assuming a 2P/Encke-like albedo) at the 95% confidence level. While meteor observations have confirmed the TS’s existence at meter and smaller sizes, our results indicate that the current mass budget of the swarm at 100 m sizes does not require an outsize parent to explain it.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".