� 2005. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A. NEW SOLAR OPACITIES, ABUNDANCES, HELIOSEISMOLOGY, AND NEUTRINO FLUXES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We construct solar models with the newly calculated radiative opacities from the Opacity Project (OP) and with recently determined (lower) heavy-element abundances. We compare the results from the new models with the predictions of a series of models that use OPAL radiative opacities, older determinations of the surface heavyelement abundances, and refinements of nuclear reaction rates. For all the variations we consider, solar models that are constructed with the newer and lower heavy-element abundances advocated by Asplund et al. disagree by much more than the estimated measuring errors with the helioseismological determinations of the depth of the solar convective zone, the surface helium composition, the internal sound speeds, and the density profile. Using the new OP radiative opacities, the ratio of the 8 B neutrino flux calculated with the older and larger heavyelement abundances (or with the newer and lower heavy-element abundances) to the total neutrino flux measured by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory is 1.09 (0.87) with a 9 % experimental uncertainty and a 16 % theoretical uncertainty, 1 j errors. Subject headings: atomic processes — neutrinos — nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, abundances — Sun: abundances — Sun: interior L85 Recent, refined determinations of the surface heavy-element abundances of the Sun have led to lower than previously believed heavy-element abundances (see Asplund et al. 2005 and references therein). A number of authors have pointed out that these lower heavy-element abundances lead to solar models that conflict with different aspects of helioseismological measurements
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.667 | 0.719 |
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".