MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965872579 · doi:10.1063/1.4831771

Shock formation processes due to interactions of two plasmas in a magnetic field and modified two-stream instabilities

2013· article· en· W1965872579 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mieko Toida, Tatsunori Uragami

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Plasmas · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut national de la recherche scientifique
KeywordsPhysicsPlasmaMagnetic fieldIonShock waveAtomic physicsPulse (music)Shock (circulatory)Reflection (computer programming)MagnetohydrodynamicsComputational physicsMechanicsOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of interactions of exploding and surrounding plasmas in an external magnetic field [K. Yamauchi and Y. Ohsawa, Phys. Plasmas 14, 053110 (2007)] is verified with two-dimensional (2D) electromagnetic particle simulations, for a case in which the initial velocity of the exploding plasma is perpendicular to the external magnetic field. The 2D simulations show essentially the same shock-formation processes as those in the previous one-dimensional simulation, including penetration of exploding ions into surrounding plasma, formation of a strong magnetic-field pulse due to deceleration of the exploding ions, ion reflection by the pulse, and subsequent splitting of the pulse into two magnetosonic pulses which then develop into forward and reverse shock waves. Furthermore, the 2D structure of electromagnetic fields in the region, where the exploding and surrounding ions overlap, is investigated with particular attention to the linear and nonlinear evolution of modified two-stream instabilities in the magnetic field that is being gradually compressed. The effects of these instabilities on ion reflection and on 2D magnetic fluctuations in the two generated pulses are also discussed.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of PlasmasSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207