MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065921942 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/31

DETAILED NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE BOHM LIMIT IN COSMIC RAY DIFFUSION THEORY

2014· article· en· W2065921942 on OpenAlexaff
M. T. Hussein, A. Shalchi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMean free pathGyroradiusDiffusionCosmic rayRADIUSLimit (mathematics)Anomalous diffusionField (mathematics)TurbulenceTest particleComputational physicsMagnetic fieldMean field theoryClassical mechanicsAstrophysicsQuantum mechanicsMechanicsScatteringMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A standard model in cosmic ray diffusion theory is the so-called Bohm limit in which the particle mean free path is assumed to be equal to the Larmor radius. This type of diffusion is often employed to model the propagation and acceleration of energetic particles. However, recent analytical and numerical work has shown that standard Bohm diffusion is not realistic. In the present paper, we perform test-particle simulations to explore particle diffusion in the strong turbulence limit in which the wave field is much stronger than the mean magnetic field. We show that there is indeed a lower limit of the particle mean free path along the mean field. In this limit, the mean free path is directly proportional to the unperturbed Larmor radius like in the traditional Bohm limit, but it is reduced by the factor δ B / B 0 where B 0 is the mean field and δ B the turbulent field. Although we focus on parallel diffusion, we also explore diffusion across the mean field in the strong turbulence limit.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207