2032 and 2036 risk enhancement from NEOs in the Taurid stream: Is there a significant coherent component to impact risk?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impact risk is normally quantified by summing the product of the probability of an event and some measure of its consequences over the set of all possible events. The probability factor is considered to be more objective and is based on the size frequency distribution of NEOs and an implicit assumption of randomness, which can be described as “stochastic risk”. Impact frequency does change with time, however, and there have been episodes in the deep geological past when the flux has been much higher. The hypothesis of “coherent catastrophism” suggests large variations on shorter timescales. It postulates the existence of a “Taurid resonant swarm” (TRS) of debris associated with Comet Encke that is stabilized by Jupiter and in a 7:2 resonance with it. The hypothetical cluster orbits in the broad Beta Taurid stream, which crosses Earth’s orbit twice a year at its nodes. Whereas the most extreme and fanciful versions of coherent catastrophism in recent geologic history have been comprehensively refuted, the possibility of a significant component of coherent (time-dependent) risk, associated with non-random correlated events, remains. This paper incorporates recently published data from observational campaigns associated with the Taurid stream. There is no evidence for objects in the Taurid stream that are above the global catastrophe threshold, but the possibility of a few large objects and a significant population of objects the size of the Chelyabinsk or Tunguska bodies has not been eliminated. Eyewitness accounts and comparison of airburst models to ground truth suggest that the Tunguska object was a Taurid. The Tunguska event is probability an outlier when compared to the size frequency distributions under stochastic assumptions, but if there is a significant coherent component it may be representative of events that take place far more frequently, and risk assessments may have underestimated the contribution from airbursts. If so, the Earth will experience increased risk from objects this size, peaking in November, 2032 and June, 2036. We recommend targeted survey campaigns during these hypothetical TRS node crossings to quantify the population, search for potentially hazardous objects, and identify imminent impactors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".