MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1937527292 · doi:10.1002/2015ja021060

The influence of different turbulence models on the diffusion coefficients of energetic particles

2015· article· en· W1937527292 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceRigidity (electromagnetism)IsotropySlabMagnetohydrodynamic driveNonlinear systemPerpendicularK-epsilon turbulence model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We explore the influence of turbulence on the transport of energetic particles by using test particle simulations. We compute parallel and perpendicular diffusion coefficients for two‐component turbulence, isotropic turbulence, a model based on Goldreich‐Sridhar scaling, noisy reduced magnetohydrodynamic turbulence, and a noisy slab model. We show that diffusion coefficients have a similar rigidity dependence regardless which turbulence model is used, and thus, we conclude that the influence of turbulence on particle transport is not as strong as originally thought. Only fundamental quantities such as particle rigidity and the Kubo number are relevant. In the current paper we also confirm the unified nonlinear transport theory for noisy slab turbulence. To double check the validity and accuracy of our numerical results, we use a second test particle code. We show that both codes provide very similar results confirming the validity of our conclusions.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.255 · 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