Convective H–He interactions in massive population III stellar evolution models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In Pop III stellar models, convection-induced mixing between H- and He-rich burning layers can induce a burst of nuclear energy and thereby substantially alter the subsequent evolution and nucleosynthesis in the first massive stars. We investigate H–He shell and core interactions in 26 stellar evolution simulations with masses 15–140, M⊙, using five sets of mixing assumptions. In 22 cases H–He interactions induce local nuclear energy release in the range $\sim 10^{9}\!-\!10^{13.5}\, \mathrm{L}_{\odot }$. The luminosities on the upper end of this range amount to a substantial fraction of the layer’s internal energy over a convective advection time-scale, indicating a dynamic stellar response that would violate 1D stellar evolution modelling assumptions. We distinguish four types of H–He interactions depending on the evolutionary phase and convective stability of the He-rich material. H-burning conditions during H–He interactions give 12C/13C ratios between ≈ 1.5 to ∼1000 and [C/N] ratios from ≈ −2.3 to ≈ 3 with a correlation that agrees well with observations of CEMP (carbon-enhanced metal-poor) no stars. We also explore Ca production from hot CNO breakout and find the simulations presented here likely cannot explain the observed Ca abundance in the most Ca-poor CEMP-no star. We describe the evolution leading to H–He interactions, which occur during or shortly after core-contraction phases. Three simulations without an H–He interaction are computed to Fe-core infall and a $140\, \mathrm{M}_{\odot }$ simulation becomes pair unstable. We also discuss present modelling limitations and the need for 3D hydrodynamic models to fully understand these stellar evolutionary phases.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".