MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971282089 · doi:10.1017/s1743921311017911

Can turbulent reconnection be fast in 2D?

2010· article· en· W1971282089 on OpenAlexaff
K. Kulpa-Dybeł, G. Kowal, K. Otmianowska‐Mazur, A. Lazarian, Ethan T. Vishniac

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsTurbulenceMagnetic reconnectionCompressibilityMechanicsWavenumberPerturbation (astronomy)Classical mechanicsStatistical physicsDirect numerical simulationComputational physicsForcing (mathematics)Current sheetMagnetohydrodynamicsMagnetic fieldReynolds numberOpticsAtmospheric sciences

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Turbulent reconnection is studied by means of two-dimensional (2D) compressible magnetohydrodynamical numerical calculations. The process of homogeneous turbulence is set up by adding two-dimensional random forcing implemented in the spectral space at small wave numbers with no correlation between velocity and forcing. We apply the initial Harris current sheet configuration together with a density profile calculated from the numerical equilibrium of magnetic and gas pressures. We assume that there is no external driving of the reconnection. The reconnection develops as a result of the initial vector potential perturbation. We use open boundary conditions. Our main goal is to find the dependencies of reconnection rate on the uniform resistivity. We present that the reconnection speed depends on the Lindquist number in 2D in the case of low as well as high resolution. When we apply more powerful turbulence the reconnection is faster, however the speed of reconnection is smaller than in the case of our three-dimensional numerical simulations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207