MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046386183 · doi:10.1086/426470

Implications of<i>WMAP</i>Observations on Li Abundance and Stellar Evolution Models

2005· article· en· W2046386183 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStellar evolutionAbundance (ecology)Stellar atmosphereStarsGalaxy formation and evolutionChemical evolutionStellar physicsStellar collision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe ( WMAP ) determination of the baryon-to-photon ratio implies, through big bang nucleosynthesis, a cosmological Li abundance larger, by a factor of 2-3, than the Li abundance plateau observed in the oldest Population II stars. It is, however, inescapable that there be a reduction by a factor of at least 1.6-2.0 of the surface Li abundance during the evolution of Population II field stars with [Fe/H] ≤ -1.5. That the observed Li should be lower than cosmologically produced Li is expected from stellar evolution models. Since at turnoff most of the Li abundance reduction is caused by gravitational settling, the presence of 6 Li in some turnoff stars is also understood. Given that the WMAP implications for Li cosmological abundance and the Li Spite plateau can be naturally explained by gravitational settling in the presence of weak turbulence, there appears little need for exotic physics as suggested by some authors. Instead, there is a need for a better understanding of turbulent transport in the radiative zones of stars. This requires simulations from first principles. Rather strict upper limits to turbulent transport are determined for the Sun and Population II stars.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations267
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207