MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040961169 · doi:10.1086/376748

The Abundance Evolution of Oxygen, Sodium, and Magnesium in Extremely Metal Poor Intermediate-Mass Stars: Implications for the Self-Pollution Scenario in Globular Clusters

2003· article· en· W2040961169 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterIsotopes of magnesiumNucleosynthesisMagnesiumStellar evolutionIsotopeAsymptotic giant branchAbundance (ecology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present full stellar evolution and parametric models of the surface abundance evolution of O16, Ne22, Na23 and the magnesium isotopes in an extremely metal-poor intermediate mass star M_ZAMS=5M_sun, Z=0.0001. O16 and Ne22 are injected into the envelope by the third dredge-up following thermal pulses on the asymptotic giant branch. These species and the initially present Mg24 are depleted by hot bottom burning (HBB) during the interpulse phase. As a result, Na23, Mg25 and Mg26 are enhanced. If the HBB temperatures are sufficiently high for this process to deplete oxygen efficiently, Na23 is first produced and then depleted during the interpulse phase. Although the simultaneous depletion of O16 and enhancement of Na23 is possible, the required fine tuning of the dredge-up and HBB casts some doubt on the robustness of this process as the origin of the O-Na anti-correlation observed in globular cluster stars. However, a very robust prediction of our models are low Mg24/Mg25 and Mg24/Mg26 ratios whenever significant O16 depletion can be achieved. This seems to be in stark contrast with recent observations of the magnesium isotopic ratios in the globular cluster NGC6752.

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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations95
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207