MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912264305 · doi:10.1063/1.5054594

Two examples of exact calculations of the adiabatic invariant for charged particle motion in non-uniform axisymmetric magnetic fields

2019· article· en· W2912264305 on OpenAlexafffund
К. Кабин

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Plasmas · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsAdiabatic invariantCharged particleMagnetic dipoleMagnetic fieldAdiabatic processClassical mechanicsMagnetosphere particle motionGuiding centerRotational symmetryDipoleInvariant (physics)Quantum electrodynamicsQuantum mechanicsMechanicsIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the calculation of the adiabatic invariant of a charged particle moving in an axisymmetric magnetic field with straight field lines. This calculation can be reduced to quadratures, and in several cases, the exact analytical results can be obtained. In particular, an exact expression is obtained for the charged particle motion in the equatorial field of a magnetic dipole, which can have important applications to the high-order guiding center theory for the particles in the terrestrial radiation belts. Another closed-form analytical result corresponds to magnetic field intensity which is inversely proportional to the radius. The results represent an extension of the classical series expansions of Kruskal for these specific magnetic fields.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of PlasmasSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207