MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105886973 · doi:10.1088/0029-5515/52/5/054003

Screening of resonant magnetic perturbations by flows in tokamaks

2012· article· en· W2105886973 on OpenAlexaff
M. Bécoulet, F. Orain, P. Maget, N. Mellet, X. Garbet, E. Nardon, G. Huysmans, T. A. Casper, A. Loarte, P. Cahyna, A. I. Smolyakov, F. L. Waelbroeck, M. J. Schaffer, T.E. Evans, Y. Liang, O. Schmitz, M. Beurskens, V. Rozhansky, E. Kaveeva

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Fusion · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsResonant magnetic perturbationsPhysicsTokamakDiamagnetismPlasmaMagnetic fieldAtomic physicsToroidElectric fieldElectronRotation (mathematics)MechanicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The non-linear reduced four-field RMHD model in cylindrical geometry was extended to include plasma rotation, neoclassical poloidal viscosity and two fluid diamagnetic effects. Interaction of the static resonant magnetic perturbations (RMPs) with the rotating plasmas in tokamaks was studied. The self-consistent evolution of equilibrium electric field due to RMP penetration is taken into account in the model. It is demonstrated that in the pedestal region with steep pressure gradients, mean flows perpendicular to the magnetic field, which includes and electron diamagnetic components plays an essential role in RMP screening by plasma. Generally, the screening effect increases for lower resistivity, stronger rotation and smaller RMP amplitude. Strong screening of central islands was observed limiting RMP penetration to the narrow region near the separatrix. However, at certain plasma parameters and due to the non-linear evolution of the radial electric field produced by RMPs, the rotation can be compensated by electron diamagnetic rotation locally. In this case, RMPs can penetrate and form magnetic islands. Typical plasma parameters and RMPs spectra on DIII-D, JET and ITER were used in modelling examples presented in the paper.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations119
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear FusionSame topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207