MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078883760 · doi:10.1086/524134

The Ratio of Helium‐ to Hydrogen‐Atmosphere White Dwarfs: Direct Evidence for Convective Mixing

2008· article· en· W2078883760 on OpenAlexaff
Pier-Emmanuel Tremblay, P. Bergeron

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtmosphere (unit)White dwarfEffective temperatureHeliumConvectionHydrogenConvective mixingAstrophysicsPhysicsStarsMixing ratioBlue dwarfAtmospheric sciencesThermodynamicsAtomic physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We determine the ratio of helium- to hydrogen-atmosphere white dwarf stars as a function of effective temperature from a model atmosphere analysis of the infrared photometric data from the Two Micron All Sky Survey combined with available visual magnitudes. Our study surpasses any previous analysis of this kind both in terms of the accuracy of the Teff determinations as well as the size of the sample. We observe that the ratio of helium- to hydrogen-atmosphere white dwarfs increases gradually from a constant value of ~0.25 between Teff = 15,000 K and 10,000 K to a value twice as large in the range 10,000 > Teff > 8000 K, suggesting that convective mixing, which occurs when the bottom of the hydrogen convection zone reaches the underlying convective helium envelope, is responsible for this gradual transition. The comparison of our results with an approximate model used to describe the outcome of this convective mixing process implies hydrogen mass layers in the range log M_H/M_tot = -10 to -8 for about 15% of the DA stars that survived the DA to DB transition near Teff ~ 30,000 K, the remainder having presumably more massive layers above log M_H/M_tot ~ -6.

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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations97
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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