The stratified evolution of a cool star
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A low mass star usually experiences stratification and abundance anomalies during its evolution. A 0.95 M⊙ star with a metallicity Z = 0.004 is followed from the main–sequence to the horizontal branch (HB). On the main sequence the larger effects of stratification may come from accretion as was suggested in relation to metallicity and planet formation. As it evolves through the giant branch, stratification appears around the hydrogen burning shell. It may create hydrodynamic instabilities and be related to abundance anomalies on the giant branch. After the helium flash the star evolves to the HB. If it loses enough mass, it ends up a hot HB star (or in the field an sdB star) with effective temperatures larger than 11000 K. All sdB stars are observed to have approximately solar iron abundance whatever their original metallicity, implying overabundances by factors of up to 100. So should the 0.95 solar mass star. How its internal hydrodynamic properties on the main sequence may influence its fate on the HB is currently uncertain. (© 2013 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".