The merits of ion cyclotron resonance heating schemes for sawtooth control in tokamak plasmas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
JET experiments have compared the efficacy of low- and high-field side ion cyclotron resonance heating (ICRH) as an actuator to deliberately minimise the sawtooth period. It is found that low-field side ICRH with low minority concentration is optimal for sawtooth control for two main reasons. Firstly, low-field side heating means that any toroidal phasing of the ICRH ( $-90^{\circ }$ , $+90^{\circ }$ or dipole) has a destabilising effect on the sawteeth, meaning that dipole phasing can be employed, since this is preferable due to less plasma wall interaction from Resonant Frequency (RF) sheaths. Secondly, the resonance position of the low-field side ICRH does not have to be very accurately placed to achieve sawtooth control, relaxing the requirement for real-time control of the RF frequency. These empirical observations have been confirmed by hybrid kinetic–magnetohydrodynamic modelling, and suggest that the ICRH antenna design for ITER is well positioned to provide a control actuator capable of having a significant effect on the sawtooth behaviour.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".