Super-Earths and Sub-Neptunes Are Insensitive to Stellar Metallicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Kepler planets (including super-Earths and sub-Neptunes, from 1–4 Earth radii) are likely formed before the gaseous protoplanetary disks have dissipated, as are the Jovian planets. If the metal content in these disks resembles that in the host stars, one might expect Kepler planets to occur more frequently, and to be more massive, around metal-rich stars. Contrary to these expectations, we find that the radii of Kepler planets (a proxy for mass) are independent of host metallicity. Previous claims that larger planets prefer more metal-rich stars can be adequately explained by the combined facts that more massive stars tend to host bigger planets, and that more massive stars are also more metal-rich in the Kepler sample. We interpret this independence as that the mass of a Kepler planet is not determined by the availability of solids, but is instead regulated by an as yet unknown process. Moreover, we find that the occurrence rates of Kepler planets rise only weakly with stellar metallicity, a trend that is further flattened when the influence of close stellar binaries is accounted for. We explain this weak dependence, in contrast to the strong dependence exhibited by Jovian planets, using a phenomenological model, wherein the masses of protoplanetary disks have a much larger spread than the spread in stellar metallicity, and wherein the formation of Jovian planets requires disks that contain some 5 times more solids than that needed to form Kepler planets. This model predicts that stars more metal-poor than half-solar should rarely host any Kepler planets.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".