MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123563171

Reconnection in weakly stochastic B-fields in 2D

2009· article· en· W3123563171 on OpenAlexaff
K. Kulpa-Dybeł, G. Kowal, K. Otmianowska‐Mazur, A. Lazarian, Ethan T. Vishniac

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsTurbulenceMagnetic reconnectionCurrent sheetLaminar flowWavenumberMechanicsMagnetic fieldPerturbation (astronomy)CompressibilityClassical mechanicsMagnetohydrodynamicsQuantum mechanics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The idea that there could be some way of producing fast magnetic reconnection even in highly conducting fluids is not new (Moffat 1978; Krause & Radler 1980), but early models of reconnection (see Parker 1957; Sweet 1958, e.g.) using realistic astrophysical temperatures and densities gave a very slow reconnection rate, ∼ VAS −1/2, where S ≡ η/(VAL) is the Lundquist number, η is the resistivity, and L is the size of the current sheet. It was Petschek (1964) who for the first time introduced a model for fast reconnection with a rate proportional to (log S) −1. Subsequent numerical simulations and theoretical analyses have shown that the Petschek reconnection rate is only attainable in very restricted circumstances. For instance, a modified version can stably persist in a collisionless plasma (see Drake et al. 2006a, e.g.). This means that the length of the current sheet should not exceed approximately 50 electron mean free paths (Uzdensky 2006; Yamada et al. 2006). This condition cannot be satisfied in many astrophysical environments, e.g. in the interstellar medium (Vishniac & Lazarian 1999). In a collisional plasma the X-point region required for Petschek reconnection will collapse to the Sweet-Parker geometry for large S (Biskamp 1996). The failure of the Petschek model has increased interest in the role of turbulence in reconnection. This interest has been further stimulated by the fact that the turbulence is ubiquitous in astrophysical environments where reconnection occurs, e.g. the ISM, stars, the Sun and accretion disks (Ruzmaikin et al. 1988). The idea that turbulence can affect reconnection has a long history, although usually studied in two-dimensions (2D) (Priest & Forbes 2000). Several researchers have approached this problem

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207