Big-bang nucleosynthesis in comparison with observed helium and deuterium abundances: Possibility of a nonstandard model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparing the latest observed abundances of $^{4}\mathrm{He}$ and D, we make a ${\ensuremath{\chi}}^{2}$ analysis to see whether it is possible to reconcile primordial nucleosynthesis using the up-to-date nuclear data of NACRE II and the mean life of neutrons. If we adopt the observational data of $^{4}\mathrm{He}$ by Izotov et al. [Astron. Astrophys. 558, A57 (2013)], we find that it is impossible to get a reasonable agreement with the standard big-bang nucleosynthesis. However, by including degenerate neutrinos, we succeed in obtaining consistent constraints between the neutrino degeneracy and the baryon-to-photon ratio from a detailed comparison of calculated abundances with the observational data of $^{4}\mathrm{He}$ and D: the baryon-to-photon ratio in units of ${10}^{\ensuremath{-}10}$ is found to be in the range $6.02\ensuremath{\lesssim}{\ensuremath{\eta}}_{10}\ensuremath{\lesssim}6.54$ for the specified parameters of neutrino degeneracy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".