MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400185526 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450800

Nova contributions to the chemical evolution of the Milky Way

2024· article· en· W4400185526 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Kemp, Amanda I. Karakas, Andrew R. Casey, Benoît Côté, R. G. Izzard, Zara Osborn

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersAustralian Research CouncilScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsMilky WayChemical evolutionNova (rocket)AstrophysicsPhysicsAstrobiologyAstronomyGalaxyEngineeringAeronautics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context. The explosive burning that drives nova eruptions results in unique nucleosynthesis that heavily over-produces certain isotopes relative to the solar abundance. However, novae are often ignored when considering the chemical evolution of our Galaxy due to their low ejecta masses. Galactic chemical evolution studies including novae are rare and have previously relied upon simplified treatments for the behaviour of nova populations. Aims. In this work, we use previously computed synthetic nova populations and the galactic chemical evolution code OMEGA+ to assess the impact that novae have on the evolution of stable elemental and isotopic abundances. Methods. We combine populations of novae computed using the binary population synthesis code binary_c with the galactic chemical evolution code OMEGA+ and detailed, white dwarf mass-dependent nova yields to model the nucleosynthetic contributions of novae to the evolution of the Milky Way. We consider three different nova yield profiles, each corresponding to a different set of nova yield calculations. Results. We examine which nova sites contribute most to which isotopes. Despite novae from low-mass white dwarfs (WDs) dominating nova ejecta contributions, we find that novae occurring on massive WDs are still able to contribute significantly to many isotopes, particularly those with high mass numbers. We find that novae can produce up to 35% of the Galactic 13 C and 15 N mass by the time the model Galaxy reaches [Fe/H] = 0, and earlier in the evolution of the Galaxy (between [Fe/H] = −2 and −1) novae may have been the dominant source of 15 N. Predictions for [ 13 C/Fe], [ 15 N/Fe], 12 C/ 13 C, and 14 N/ 15 N abundances ratios vary by up to 0.2 dex at [Fe/H] = 0 and by up to 0.7 dex in [ 15 N/Fe] and 14 N/ 15 N between [Fe/H] = −2 and −1 (corresponding approximately to Galactic ages of 170 Myr and 1 Gyr in our model). The Galactic evolution of other stable isotopes (excluding Li) is not noticeably affected by including novae. For most isotopes, agreement is generally good between the three different yield profiles we consider. Isotopes where agreement is relatively poor include: 3 He (especially at high M WD ), 7 Li, 18 O, 18 F, and the > 1.3 M ⊙ regime of 29 Si, 33 S, 34 S, 35 Cl, and 36 Ar.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207