MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138672083 · doi:10.5194/npg-19-297-2012

Reconnection studies under different types of turbulence driving

2012· article· en· W2138672083 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNonlinear processes in geophysics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at AustinFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTurbulenceMagnetic reconnectionEddyTurbulence modelingScale (ratio)Turbulence kinetic energyAmplitude

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.268 · 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