The intensity of energetic particles at the evolving Earth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energetic particles can drive the formation of prebiotic molecules in exoplanetary which are important for the origin of life. On the other hand, large energetic particle fluxes are known to be detrimental to developed life by damaging DNA. Thus, in order to understand the origin, and subsequent survival, of life on Earth it is necessary to first understand the energetic particle fluxes incident on Earth at that time. There are two types of energetic particles that are important: stellar energetic particles accelerated by their host star and Galactic cosmic rays.I will present our recent results that model the propagation of these energetic particles through the wind of a Sun-like star during its lifetime. We find, at the time when life is thought to have begun on Earth, that Galactic cosmic ray fluxes were greatly suppressed in comparison to present-day values. However, I will show that stellar energetic particle fluxes would have been larger than present-day values. I motivate that the maximum stellar energetic particle energy increases for younger stars. This is extremely important because higher energy particles are more likely to impact the surface of a planet, in addition to its atmosphere. I will briefly discuss how we applied our model to an exoplanetary system and how this can be linked to upcoming observations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".