MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1879839488 · doi:10.1017/s0074180900196056

Mixing and the <i>s</i>-Process in Rotating AGB Stars

2004· article· en· W1879839488 on OpenAlexaff
Falk Herwig, N. Langer, Maria Lugaro

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium - International Astronomical Union · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMixing (physics)NucleosynthesisAsymptotic giant branchAstrophysicsStarsMetallicityRadiative transfers-processNeutron starEnvelope (radar)NeutronNuclear physicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We model the nucleosynthesis during a radiative interpulse phase of a rotating 3 M ⊙ Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) star. We find an enhanced production of the neutron source species 13 C compared to non-rotating models due to shear mixing of protons and 12 C at the core-envelope interface. We estimate that the resulting total production of heavy elements by slow neutron capture ( s -process) is too low to account for most observations. This due to the fact that rotationally induced mixing during the interpulse phase causes a pollution of the 13 C pocket layer with the neutron poison 14 N. As a result we find a maximum neutron exposure of τ max = 0.04 mbarn –1 in the s -process layer of our solar metallicity model with rotation. This is about a factor of 5 … 10 less than required to reproduce the observed stellar s -process abundance patterns. We compare our results with models that include hydrodynamic overshooting mixing, and with simple parametric models including the combined effects of overshooting and mixing in the interpulse. Within the parametric model a range of mixing efficiencies during the interpulse phase correlates with a spread in the s -process-efficiency. Such a spread is observed in AGB and post-AGB stars as well as in pre-solar SiC grains.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposium - International Astronomical UnionSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207