The detailed chemical composition of the terrestrial planet host Kepler-10
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical abundance studies of the Sun and solar twins have demonstrated that the solar composition of refractory elements is depleted when compared to volatile elements, which could be due to the formation of terrestrial planets. In order to further examine this scenario, we conducted a line-by-line differential chemical abundance analysis of the terrestrial planet host Kepler-10 and 14 of its stellar twins. Stellar parameters and elemental abundances of Kepler-10 and its stellar twins were obtained with very high precision using a strictly differential analysis of high quality Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope, Hobby–Eberly Telescope and Magellan spectra. When compared to the majority of thick disc twins, Kepler-10 shows a depletion in the refractory elements relative to the volatile elements, which could be due to the formation of terrestrial planets in the Kepler-10 system. The average abundance pattern corresponds to ∼13 Earth masses, while the two known planets in Kepler-10 system have a combined ∼20 Earth masses. For two of the eight thick disc twins, however, no depletion patterns are found. Although our results demonstrate that several factors [e.g. planet signature, stellar age, stellar birth location and Galactic chemical evolution (GCE)] could lead to or affect abundance trends with condensation temperature, we find that the trends give further support for the planetary signature hypothesis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".