MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089931529 · doi:10.1063/1.2830646

Revision of “Cumulative effect of the filamentation and Weibel instabilities in counterstreaming thermal plasmas” [Phys. Plasmas 13, 102107 (2006)]

2008· article· en· W2089931529 on OpenAlexaff
A. Stockem, M. Lazar

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Plasmas · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsFilamentationPlasmaWeibel instabilityDistribution functionAnisotropyMagnetic fieldInstabilityAtomic physicsDispersion relationComputational physicsQuantum electrodynamicsCondensed matter physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dispersion formalism reported in Lazar et al. [Phys. Plasmas 13, 102107 (2006)] is affected by errors due to the misfitting of the distribution function (1) used to interpret the counterstreaming plasmas, with the general dispersion relations (4) and (5), where distribution function (1) has been inserted to find the unstable solutions. The analytical approach is reviewed here, providing a correct analytical and numerical description for the cumulative effect of filamentation and Weibel instabilities arising in initially counterstreaming plasmas with temperature anisotropies. The growth rates are plotted again, and for the cumulative mode, they are orders of magnitude larger than those obtained in Lazar et al. [Phys. Plasmas 13, 102107 (2006)]. Physically, this can be understood as an increasing of the efficiency of magnetic field generation, and rather enhances the potential role of magnetic instabilities for the fast magnetization scenario in astrophysical applications.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of PlasmasSame topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207