MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159540586 · doi:10.1017/s1743921310000244

The metal–poor end of the Spite plateau

2009· article· en· W2159540586 on OpenAlexaff
L. Sbordone, P. Bonifacio, E. Caffau, H.‐G. Ludwig, N. T. Behara, Matthias Steffen, R. Cayrel, B. Freytag, C. van’t Veer, P. Molaro, B. Plez, T. Sivarani, M. Spite, F. Spite, Timothy C. Beers, N. Christlieb, P. François, Vanessa Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsImpact
FundersCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMetallicityAstrophysicsPlateau (mathematics)PhysicsHaloNucleosynthesisEstimatorLithium (medication)Big Bang nucleosynthesisStarsStatisticsMathematicsGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present the largest sample available to date of lithium abundances in extremely metal poor (EMP) Halo dwarfs. Four T eff estimators are used, including IRFM and Hα wings fitting against 3D hydrodynamical synthetic profiles. Lithium abundances are computed by means of 1D and 3D-hydrodynamical NLTE computations. Below [Fe/H]~−3, a strong positive correlation of A(Li) with [Fe/H] appears, not influenced by the choice of the Teff estimator. A linear fit finds a slope of about 0.30 dex in A(Li) per dex in [Fe/H], significant to 2–3 σ, and consistent within 1 σ among all the T eff estimators. The scatter in A(Li) increases significantly below [Fe/H]~−3. Above, the plateau lies at 〈A(Li) 3D, NLTE 〉 = 2.199 ± 0.086. If the primordial A(Li) is the one derived from standard Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), it appears difficult to envision a single depletion phenomenon producing a thin, metallicity independent plateau above [Fe/H] = −2.8, and a highly scattered, metallicity dependent distribution below.

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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207