MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060822450 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1909

Testing large-scale vortex formation against viscous layers in three-dimensional discs

2013· article· en· W2060822450 on OpenAlexaff
Min-Kai Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsVortexScale (ratio)MechanicsAstrophysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vortex formation through the Rossby wave instability (RWI) in protoplanetary discs has been invoked to play a role in planet formation theory, and suggested to explain the observation of large dust asymmetries in several transitional discs. However, whether or not vortex formation operates in layered accretion discs, i.e. models of protoplanetary discs including dead zones near the disc midplane --- regions that are magnetically inactive and the effective viscosity greatly reduced --- has not been verified. As a first step toward testing the robustness of vortex formation in layered discs, we present non-linear hydrodynamical simulations of global 3D protoplanetary discs with an imposed kinematic viscosity that increases away from the disc midplane. Two sets of numerical experiments are performed: (i) non-axisymmetric instability of artificial radial density bumps in viscous discs; (ii) vortex-formation at planetary gap edges in layered discs. Experiment (i) shows that the linear instability is largely unaffected by viscosity and remains dynamical. The disc-planet simulations also show the initial development of vortices at gap edges, but in layered discs the vortices are transient structures which disappear well into the non-linear regime. We suggest that the long term survival of columnar vortices, such as those formed via the RWI, requires low effective viscosity throughout the vertical extent of the disc, so such vortices do not persist in layered discs.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 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

Citations38
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207