MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283722194 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7c72

Viability of Novae as Sources of Galactic Lithium

2022· article· en· W4283722194 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Kemp, Amanda I. Karakas, Andrew R. Casey, Benoît Côté, R. G. Izzard, Zara Osborn

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersAustralian Research CouncilScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsEjectaPhysicsAstrophysicsNova (rocket)MetallicityMilky WayAstronomyPopulationPrimary (astronomy)Lithium (medication)GalaxySupernova

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Of all the light elements, the evolution of lithium (Li) in the Milky Way is perhaps the most difficult to explain. Li is difficult to synthesize and is easily destroyed, making most stellar sites unsuitable for producing Li in sufficient quantities to account for the protosolar abundance. For decades, novae have been proposed as a potential explanation for this “Galactic Li problem,” and the recent detection of 7Be in the ejecta of multiple nova eruptions has breathed new life into this theory. In this work, we assess the viability of novae as dominant producers of Li in the Milky Way. We present the most comprehensive treatment of novae in a galactic chemical evolution code to date, testing theoretically and observationally derived nova Li yields by integrating metallicity-dependent nova ejecta profiles computed using the binary population synthesis code binary_c with the galactic chemical evolution code OMEGA+. We find that our galactic chemical evolution models which use observationally derived Li yields account for the protosolar Li abundance very well, while models relying on theoretical nova yields cannot reproduce the protosolar observation. A brief exploration of physical uncertainties including single-stellar yields, the metallicity resolution of our nova treatment, common-envelope physics, and nova accretion efficiencies indicates that this result is robust to physical assumptions. Scatter within the observationally derived Li yields in novae is identified as the primary source of uncertainty, motivating further observations of 7Be in nova ejecta.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207