MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098598520

Convection-driven kinematic dynamos with a self-consistent shear flow

2018· article· W3098598520 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2018
Typearticle
Language
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilEuropean Research CouncilCentre for Asia-Pacific InitiativesUniversity of LeicesterUniversity of Exeter
KeywordsDynamoPhysicsThermal windDynamo theoryShear flowTurbulenceSolar dynamoMagnetic Reynolds numberMagnetic fieldClassical mechanicsConvectionShear (geology)MechanicsReynolds numberMagnetohydrodynamicsVector fieldWind shearMeteorologyWind speedGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely accepted that astrophysical magnetic fields are generated by dynamo action. In many cases, these fields exhibit organisation on a scale larger than that of the underlying turbulent flow (e.g. the 11-year solar cycle). The mechanism for the generation of so-called large-scale fields remains an open problem. In cases where the magnetic Reynolds number (Rm) is small, dynamo-generated fields are coherent but at (the astrophysically relevant) high Rm, the fields are overwhelmed by small-scale fluctuating field. Recently Tobias and Cattaneo have shown that an imposed large-scale shear flow can suppress the small-scale fluctuations and allow the large-scale temporal behaviour to emerge. Shear is also believed to modify the electromotive force by introducing correlations between the flow and the field. However, in previous models at high Rm the shear is often artificially imposed or driven by an arbitrary body force. Here we consider a simple kinematic model of a convective dynamo in which shear is self-consistently driven by the presence of a horizontal temperature gradient (resulting in a thermal wind) and a rotation vector that is oblique to gravity. By considering a 2.5-dimensional system, we are able to reach high Rm so that the dynamo approaches the asymptotic regime where the growth rate becomes approximately independent of Rm. We find the flows studied here to be excellent small-scale dynamos, but with very little systematic behaviour evident at large Rm. We attribute this to being unable to self-consistently generate flows with both large (net) helicity and strong shear in this setup.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207