MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1648509394 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0811.4646

NuGrid: Toward High Precision Double-Degenerate Merger Simulations with SPH in 3D

2008· preprint· en· W1648509394 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Diehl, Chris L. Fryer, Aimee Hungerford, Gabriel Rockefeller, Michael Bennett, Falk Herwig, Raphaël Hirschi, M. Pignatari, Georgios Magkotsios, F. X. Timmes, Patrick Young, Geoffrey C. Clayton, Patrick M. Motl, Joel E. Tohline

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2008
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoothed-particle hydrodynamicsDegenerate energy levelsSuitePhysicsSupernovaStatistical physicsParticle (ecology)Computer sciencePath (computing)MechanicsAstrophysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present preliminary results from recent high-resolution double-degenerate merger simulations with the Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) technique. We put particular emphasis on verification and validation in our effort and show the importance of details in the initial condition setup for the final outcome of the simulation. We also stress the dynamical importance of including shocks in the simulations. These results represent a first step toward a suite of simulations that will shed light on the question whether double-degenerate mergers are a viable path toward type 1a supernovae. In future simulations, we will make use of the capabilities of the NuGrid collaboration in post-processing SPH particle trajectories with a complete nuclear network to follow the detailed nuclear reactions during the dynamic merger phase.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207