MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412120925 · doi:10.5194/epsc-dps2025-445

An overview of the geology on the C-type Main Belt asteroid (52246) Donaldjohanson from NASA’s Lucy flyby

2025· preprint· en· W4412120925 on OpenAlexaff
E. B. Bierhaus, S. J. Robbins, J. E. C. Scully, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Fiona Nichols‐Fleming, S. Mottola, O. S. Barnouin, Harrison Agrusa, J. M. Sunshine, S. A. Stern, Richard P. Binzel, Keith Noll, John R. Spencer, S. Marchi, Hal Levison

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsAsteroidAstrobiologyGeologyAsteroid beltPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NASA’s Lucy mission [1] will explore the Trojan asteroids, a population of small bodies in the Sun-Jupiter L4 and L5 Lagrange points. En route to the Trojans, Lucy encountered the main belt C-type asteroid (52246) Donaldjohanson on April 20, 2025 [2]. The flyby was an opportunity to assess the performance of the science instruments when observing a small body, as well as test the spacecraft functions needed for the Trojan encounters.Data types from the Donaldjohanson encounter include visible images from the L’LORRI [3] and TTCam [4] instruments. The images span a range of phase angles, resolutions, and viewing geometries. These data enable measurements of body dimensions and shape [5], albedo [6], and surface features. The overall shape of Donaldjohanson suggests a contact binary, a situation in which two objects merged to become a single object, with the shape of the merged object expressing a bi-lobed geometry; the connection between the two lobes is narrower and informally called the “neck”. One lobe apparently is larger than the other [5]. Craters and boulders, which are common surface features on other asteroids, are present across both lobes and the neck [7, 8]. The surfaces of the lobes express similar regional surface morphologies, apparently dominated by impact cratering. The large lobe has pit-chain like features [9]. The neck’s surface is generally smoother than the lobes, and the craters on the neck often appear to be shallower, and some have relatively flat floors. The neck has two prominent ridge-like features that are approximately at either end of its hourglass shape; i.e., the ridges are approximately at the interfaces between the neck and the two lobes. The neck’s geometry relative to the lobes results in a distinct region of surface gravity, surface stress, and volumetric stress [10].Collectively the features, their distributions, and their morphologies may reflect processes expected to be common among all asteroids (i.e. cratering, boulder and regolith generation and redistribution), as well as processes that are the result of contact binary formation and evolution. More broadly, contact binaries have been observed in comets and Kuiper Belt objects (in addition to asteroids), and the novel high-resolution Lucy data will help elucidate the processes for this class of object.References[1] Levison et al. (2021) PSJ 2, 171. [2] Levison et al. (2025) this conference. [3] Weaver et al. (2023) SSR 219, article id 82. [4] Bell et al. (2023) SSR 219, article id 86. [5] Mottola et al. (2025), this conference. [6] Spencer et al. (2025), this conference. [7] Robbins et al. (2025), this conference. [8] Scully et al. (2025), this conference. [9] Nichols-Fleming et al. (2025), this conference. [10] Hirabayashi et al. (2025), this conference. AcknowledgementsThe Lucy mission is funded through the NASA Discovery program via contract numbers NNM16AA08C and NNG17FD73C.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.006

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAstro and Planetary Science→French-language works237,207→