Composition of the Innermost Core‐Collapse Supernova Ejecta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With currently known input physics and computer simulations in one dimension, a self-consistent treatment of core-collapse supernovae does not yet lead to successful explosions, while two-dimensional models show some promise. Thus, there are strong indications that the delayed neutrino mechanism works combined with a multidimensional convection treatment for unstable layers (possibly with the aid of rotation, magnetic fields and/or still existent uncertainties in neutrino opacities). On the other hand, there is a need to provide correct nucleosynthesis abundances for the progressing field of galactic evolution and observations of low-metallicity stars. The innermost ejecta is directly affected by the explosion mechanism, i.e., most strongly, the yields of Fe group nuclei for which an induced piston or thermal bomb treatment will not provide the correct yields because the effect of neutrino interactions is not included. We apply parameterized variations to the neutrino-scattering cross sections in order to mimic in one dimension the possible increase of neutrino luminosities caused by uncertainties in proto-neutron star convection. Alternatively, parameterized variations are applied to the neutrino absorption cross sections on nucleons in the "gain region" to mimic the increase in neutrino energy deposition enabled by convective turnover. We find that both measures lead to similar results, causing explosions and a Y e > 0.5 in the innermost ejected layers, due to the combined effect of a short weak-interaction timescale and a negligible electron degeneracy, unveiling the proton-neutron mass difference. We include all weak interactions (electron and positron capture, β-decay, neutrino and antineutrino capture on nuclei, and neutrino and antineutrino capture on nucleons) and present first nucleosynthesis results for these innermost ejected layers to discuss how they improve predictions for Fe group nuclei. The proton-rich environment results in enhanced abundances of 45 Sc, 49 Ti, and 64 Zn as required by chemical evolution studies and observations of low-metallicity stars, as well as appreciable production of nuclei in the mass range up to A = 80.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".