MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2402927727 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1280

A comparison between grid and particle methods on the small-scale dynamo in magnetized supersonic turbulence

2016· article· en· W2402927727 on OpenAlexaff
Terrence S. Tricco, Daniel J. Price, Christoph Federrath

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
FundersLeibniz-GemeinschaftAustralian Research CouncilGauss Centre for SupercomputingPartnership for Advanced Computing in Europe AISBLAustralian Government
KeywordsPhysicsDynamoTurbulenceMagnetic Prandtl numberMagnetohydrodynamicsSupersonic speedMagnetic fieldComputational physicsMagnetohydrodynamic turbulenceMechanicsMagnetic energySaturation (graph theory)AstrophysicsClassical mechanicsMagnetizationReynolds number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We perform a comparison between the smoothed particle magnetohydrodynamics (SPMHD) code, PHANTOM, and the Eulerian grid-based code, FLASH, on the small-scale turbulent dynamo in driven, Mach 10 turbulence. We show, for the first time, that the exponential growth and saturation of an initially weak magnetic field via the small-scale dynamo can be successfully reproduced with SPMHD. The two codes agree on the behaviour of the magnetic energy spectra, the saturation level of magnetic energy, and the distribution of magnetic field strengths during the growth and saturation phases. The main difference is that the dynamo growth rate, and its dependence on resolution, differs between the codes, caused by differences in the numerical dissipation and shock capturing schemes leading to differences in the effective Prandtl number in PHANTOM and FLASH.

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)0.000
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 score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207