MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417165901 · doi:10.3847/psj/ae1d62

Retrograde Predominance of Small Saturnian Moons Reiterates a Recent Retrograde Collisional Disruption

2025· article· en· W4417165901 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Edward Ashton, Brett Gladman, Mike Alexandersen, Jean-Marc Petit

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Planetary Science Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsSaturnRange (aeronautics)NeptuneOrbit (dynamics)Comet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We report the discovery and careful orbital determination of 64 new irregular moons of Saturn found in images taken using the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope from 2019 to 2021, bringing the total number of Saturnian irregulars to 122. By more than doubling the sample of Saturnian irregular moon orbits, including pushing to smaller sizes, we can now see finer detail in their orbital distribution. We note the emergence of potential subgroups associated with each of Siarnaq and Kiviuq within the Inuit group. We find that in the inclination range 157 ∘ –172 ∘ , the ratio of smaller moons (diameters less than 4 km) to larger moons (diameters greater than 4 km) is significantly larger than that of any other inclination range in the retrogrades. We denote this subset of the Norse group as the Mundilfari subgroup after its largest member. The incredibly steep slope of the Mundilfari subgroup’s size distribution, with a differential power law index of q = 6, strengthens the hypothesis in E. Ashton et al. that this subgroup was created by a recent catastrophic collision, <10 8 yr ago.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Planetary Science JournalSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207