MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410721159 · doi:10.1002/asna.70002

Can We Draw Conclusions on Supernova Shock Wave Propagation Using Short‐Lived Radioactive Isotopes?

2025· article· en· W4410721159 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Wehmeyer, Andrés Yagüe López, Benoît Côté, Mária Pető, Chiaki Kobayashi, Maria Lugaro

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomische Nachrichten · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsH2020 European Research CouncilWroclawskie Centrum Sieciowo-Superkomputerowe, Politechnika WroclawskaMagyar Tudományos AkadémiaOffice of International Science and EngineeringEuropean Cooperation in Science and TechnologyScience and Technology Facilities CouncilLos Alamos National LaboratoryJoint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics - Center for the Evolution of the ElementsNational Nuclear Security AdministrationNemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs HivatalNarodowe Centrum NaukiU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean CommissionLeverhulme TrustNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSupernovaPhysicsNeutron starAstrophysicsStarsInterstellar mediumIsotopeNucleosynthesisShock waveAstronomyNuclear physicsGalaxyMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We run a three‐dimensional Galactic chemical evolution (GCE) model to follow the propagation of 53 Mn (exclusively produced from type Ia supernovae, SNIa), 60 Fe (exclusively produced from core‐collapse supernovae, CCSNe), 182 Hf (exclusively produced from intermediate mass stars, IMSs), and 244 Pu (exclusively produced from neutron star mergers, NSMs). By comparing the predictions from our three‐dimensional GCE model to recent detections of 53 Mn, 60 Fe, and 244 Pu on the deep‐sea floor, we draw conclusions about their propagation in the interstellar medium.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomische NachrichtenSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207