MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6942178459 · doi:10.14288/1.0072205

The orbital distribution of near-Earth objects inside Earth's orbit

2011· article· en· W6942178459 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsteroidOrbital elementsPopulationOrbit (dynamics)Orbital mechanicsSatelliteOrbit determinationOrbital inclination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's Near-Earth Object Surveillance Satellite (NEOSSat), set to launch in early 2012, will search for and track Near-Earth Objects (NEOs), tuning its search to best detect objects with semimajor axis a<1.0 AU. In order to construct an optimal pointing strategy for NEOSSat, we needed more detailed information in the a<1.0 AU region than the best current model (Bottke et al., 2002) provides. We present here the NEOSSat-1.0 NEO orbital distribution model with larger statistics that permit finer resolution and less uncertainty, especially in the a<1.0 AU region. We find that Amors =30.1 ± 0.8%, Apollos =63.3 ± 0.4%, Atens =5.0 ± 0.3%, Atiras (0.718<Q<0.983 AU) =1.38 ± 0.04%, and Vatiras (0.307<Q<0.718 AU) =0.22 ± 0.03% of the steady-state NEO population, where Q is the orbit's aphelion distance. Vatiras are a previously undiscussed NEO population clearly defined in our integrations, whose orbits lie completely interior to that of Venus. Our integrations also uncovered the unexpected production of retrograde orbits from main-belt asteroid sources; this retrograde NEA population makes up ≃0.10% of the steady-state NEO population. The relative NEO impact rate onto Mercury, Venus, and Earth, as well as the normalized distribution of impact speeds, was calculated from the NEOSSat-1.0 orbital model under the assumption of a steady-state. The new model predicts a slightly higher Mercury impact flux.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.191 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207