MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105403924

Magnetic Reconnection in Astrophysical Environments

2016· book-chapter· en· W3105403924 on OpenAlexaff
A. Lazarian, Gregory L. Eyink, Ethan T. Vishniac, G. Kowal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic reconnectionPhysicsTurbulenceMagnetic fieldAstrophysicsMagnetohydrodynamicsMagnetic energyMagnetic fluxNanoflaresClassical mechanicsComputational physicsMechanicsSolar windCoronal mass ejectionQuantum mechanics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Magnetic reconnection is a process that changes magnetic field topology in highly conducting fluids. Traditionally, magnetic reconnection was associated mostly with solar flares. In reality, the process must be ubiquitous as astrophysical fluids are magnetized and motions of fluid elements necessarily entail crossing of magnetic frozen in field lines and magnetic reconnection. We consider magnetic re-connection in realistic 3D geometry in the presence of turbulence. This turbulence in most astrophysical settings is of pre-existing nature, but it also can be induced by magnetic reconnection itself. In this situation turbulent magnetic field wander-ing opens up reconnection outflow regions, making reconnection fast. We discuss Lazarian & Vishniac (1999) model of turbulent reconnection, its numerical and ob-servational testings, as well as its connection to the modern understanding of the Lagrangian properties of turbulent fluids. We show that the predicted dependences of the reconnection rates on the level of MHD turbulence make the generally ac-cepted Goldreich & Sridhar (1995) model of turbulence self-consistent. Similarly, we argue that the well-known Alfvén theorem on flux freezing is not valid for the turbulent fluids and therefore magnetic fields diffuse within turbulent volumes. This is an element of magnetic field dynamics that was not accounted by earlier theories. For instance, the theory of star formation that was developing assuming that it is

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)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207