MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2093506133 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912328

Atomic diffusion during red giant evolution

2009· article· en· W2093506133 on OpenAlexafffund
G. Michaud, J. Richer, O. Richard

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsPhysicsAtomic diffusionSubgiantMetallicityAstrophysicsDiffusionRed giantAmbipolar diffusionHeliumRed-giant branchAtomic physicsHydrogenStarsThermodynamicsNuclear physicsGlobular clusterPlasma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atomic diffusion has been found to play a role during most stellar evolution stages. Its effect is studied during the relatively rapid red giant (RG) phase to determine the concentration variations it leads to and at what accuracy level it can be safely neglected. A model calculated with atomic diffusion to the helium flash is compared to one calculated without any atomic diffusion and to one calculated with atomic diffusion up to a point on the subgiant branch well past the turnoff but without diffusion thereafter. For stars with a metallicity of , it was found that the mass of the helium core at which the He flash occurs is 0.0026 M larger in the presence of atomic diffusion. The difference decreases to 0.0017 M as metallicity is increased to Z = 0.02. Radiative accelerations are found to play an interesting role around the hydrogen burning shell. The atomic diffusion of 4He is also shown to lead to a larger μ inversion than 3He burning. Its potential role in mixing between the burning shell and the surface convection zone is investigated. Whether one may neglect atomic diffusion during the RG phase depends on the required accuracy. It is not so negligible as one may have expected but still only reduces by about 0.02 dex the luminosity of the RG branch bump. The way it modifies the mass of the core when the flash occurs depends on metallicity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and Astrophysics→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→