MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004491341 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423700

Characteristics of magnetic solar-like cycles in a 3D MHD simulation of solar convection

2014· article· en· W2004491341 on OpenAlexafffund
Dário Passos, Paul Charbonneau

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsDynamoMagnetohydrodynamicsConvection zoneSolar dynamoSolar cycleAstrophysicsAmplitudeMagnetic fieldMagnetohydrodynamic driveConvectionComputational physicsDynamo theoryMechanicsSolar windOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyse the statistical properties of the stable magnetic cycle unfolding in an extended 3D magnetohydrodynamic simulation of solar convection produced with the EULAG-MHD code. The millennium simulation spans over 1650 years, in the course of which forty polarity reversals take place on a regular ~40 yr cadence, remaining well-synchronized across solar hemispheres. In order to characterize this cycle and facilitate its comparison with measures typically used to represent solar activity, we build two proxies for the magnetic field in the simulation mimicking the solar toroidal field and the polar radial field. Several quantities that characterize the cycle are measured (period, amplitudes, etc.) and correlations between them are computed. These are then compared with their observational analogs. From the typical Gnevyshev-Ohl pattern, to hints of Gleissberg modulation, the simulated cycles share many of the characteristics of their observational analogs even though the simulation lacks poloidal field regeneration through active region decay, a mechanism nowadays often considered an essential component of the solar dynamo. Some significant discrepancies are also identified, most notably the in-phase variation of the simulated poloidal and toroidal large-scale magnetic components, and the low degree of hemispheric coupling at the level of hemispheric cycle amplitudes. Possible causes underlying these discrepancies are 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 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)0.002
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations67
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207