Bright Planetary Nebulae and their Progenitors in Galaxies Without Star Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present chemical abundances for planetary nebulae in M32, NGC 185, and NGC 205 based upon spectroscopy obtained at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope using the Multi-Object Spectrograph. From these and similar data compiled from the literature for bright planetary nebulae in other Local Group galaxies, we consider the origin and evolution of the stellar progenitors of bright planetary nebulae in galaxies where star formation ceased long ago. The ratio of neon to oxygen abundances in bright planetary nebulae is either identical to that measured in the interstellar medium of star-forming dwarf galaxies or at most changed by a few percent, indicating that neither abundance is significantly altered as a result of the evolution of their stellar progenitors. Several planetary nebulae appear to have dredged up oxygen, but these are the exception, not the rule. The progenitors of bright planetary nebulae typically enhance their original helium abundances by less than 50%. In contrast, nitrogen enhancements can reach factors of 100. However, nitrogen often shows little or no enhancement, without any relation between the level of enrichment and other parameters studied here, suggesting that nitrogen enrichment is a random process. The helium, oxygen, and neon abundances argue that the typical bright planetary
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".