Reconnection studies under different types of turbulence driving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We study a model of fast magnetic reconnection in the presence of weak turbulence proposed by Lazarian and Vishniac (1999) using three-dimensional direct numerical simulations. The model has been already successfully tested in Kowal et al. (2009) confirming the dependencies of the reconnection speed Vrec on the turbulence injection power Pinj and the injection scale linj expressed by a constraint Vrec ~ Pinj1/2linj3/4and no observed dependency on Ohmic resistivity. In Kowal et al. (2009), in order to drive turbulence, we injected velocity fluctuations in Fourier space with frequencies concentrated around kinj = 1/linj, as described in Alvelius (1999). In this paper, we extend our previous studies by comparing fast magnetic reconnection under different mechanisms of turbulence injection by introducing a new way of turbulence driving. The new method injects velocity or magnetic eddies with a specified amplitude and scale in random locations directly in real space. We provide exact relations between the eddy parameters and turbulent power and injection scale. We performed simulations with new forcing in order to study turbulent power and injection scale dependencies. The results show no discrepancy between models with two different methods of turbulence driving exposing the same scalings in both cases. This is in agreement with the Lazarian and Vishniac (1999) predictions. In addition, we performed a series of models with varying viscosity ν. Although Lazarian and Vishniac (1999) do not provide any prediction for this dependence, we report a weak relation between the reconnection speed with viscosity, Vrec ~ ν−1/4.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".