MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109198545 · doi:10.1002/2014gl060814

Explaining Jupiter's magnetic field and equatorial jet dynamics

2014· article· en· W2109198545 on OpenAlexaff
T. Gastine, Johannes Wicht, L. Duarte, Moritz Heimpel, Andreas Becker

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamoJupiter (rocket family)JovianPhysicsDynamo theoryJet (fluid)Magnetic fieldObservableGeophysicsGas giantPlanetMercury's magnetic fieldAstrophysicsSpacecraftL-shellMechanicsAstronomyEarth's magnetic fieldSaturn

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Spacecraft data reveal a very Earth‐like Jovian magnetic field. This is surprising since numerical simulations have shown that the vastly different interiors of terrestrial and gas planets can strongly affect the internal dynamo process. Here we present the first numerical dynamo that manages to match the structure and strength of the observed magnetic field by embracing the newest models for Jupiter's interior. Simulated dynamo action primarily occurs in the deep high electrical conductivity region, while zonal flows are dynamically constrained to a strong equatorial jet in the outer envelope of low conductivity. Our model reproduces the structure and strength of the observed global magnetic field and predicts that secondary dynamo action associated to the equatorial jet produces banded magnetic features likely observable by the Juno mission. Secular variation in our model scales to about 2000 nT per year and should also be observable during the 1 year nominal mission duration.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations82
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207