The chemical evolution of the solar neighbourhood for planet-hosting stars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Theoretical physical-chemical models for the formation of planetary systems depend on data quality for the Sun’s composition, that of stars in the solar neighbourhood, and of the estimated ’pristine’ compositions for stellar systems. The effective scatter and the observational uncertainties of elements within a few hundred parsecs from the Sun, even for the most abundant metals like carbon, oxygen and silicon, are still controversial. Here we analyse the stellar production and the chemical evolution of key elements that underpin the formation of rocky (C, O, Mg, Si) and gas/ice giant planets (C, N, O, S). We calculate 198 galactic chemical evolution (GCE) models of the solar neighbourhood to analyse the impact of different sets of stellar yields, of the upper mass limit for massive stars contributing to GCE (Mup) and of supernovae from massive-star progenitors which do not eject the bulk of the iron-peak elements (faint supernovae). Even considering the GCE variation produced via different sets of stellar yields, the observed dispersion of elements reported for stars in the Milky Way (MW) disc is not reproduced. Among others, the observed range of super-solar [Mg/Si] ratios, sub-solar [S/N], and the dispersion of up to 0.5 dex for [S/Si] challenge our models. The impact of varying Mup depends on the adopted supernova yields. Thus, observations do not provide a constraint on the Mup parametrization. When including the impact of faint supernova models in GCE calculations, elemental ratios vary by up to 0.1–0.2 dex in the MW disc; this modification better reproduces 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".