MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982474733 · doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ab51d6

The roles of power loss and momentum-pressure loss in causing particle-detachment in tokamak divertors: II. 2 Point Model analysis that includes recycle power-loss explicitly

2019· article· en· W2982474733 on OpenAlexaff
P.C. Stangeby

Bibliographic record

VenuePlasma Physics and Controlled Fusion · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTokamakPower lossMomentum (technical analysis)Particle (ecology)Power (physics)Point (geometry)PhysicsMechanicsComputational physicsPlasmaNuclear physicsThermodynamicsGeologyMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the Part I companion paper, using a simple heuristic model it was demonstrated that, generically, volumetric loss of both pressure-momentum and power are required for particle detachment to occur. The volumetric power-loss fraction, f pwr − loss , was treated as a freely specifiable quantity; however, part of f pwr − loss is due to the hydrogenic recycle process at the target and in the present paper an extended 2 Point Model—the 2 PM with Recycle —is used that takes this into account explicitly. It is again demonstrated, but now using more physically realistic modeling of both pressure-momentum and power loss, that it is the combination of these two volumetric losses that is the cause of particle-detachment. For practical use, a convenient spreadsheet version is provided for the 2 PM with Recycle . It allows the user to specify the magnitudes and time-variation during a discharge of the 3 primary drivers of plasma conditions in the divertor: q ∣ ∣ u t , f radiation impurity t , and n u t or p totu t , where t (s) is the time in the discharge; it outputs values of plasma quantities at the target, T et t , Γ ∣ ∣ t t

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlasma Physics and Controlled FusionSame topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207