Physics‐Based Analytical Model of the Planetary Bow Shock Position and Shape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In studies of physical processes near planetary bow shocks, empirical models of the latter are usually used. While computational magneto‐hydrodynamics (MHD) or kinetic models of bow shocks are often more accurate, their computationally extensive nature limits their applicability to routine analysis of large volumes of data. We suggest an analytical model of the bow shock position based on MHD calculations and accurate analytical solutions. The analytical expressions for the bow shock position and shape include the following parameters: The distance of the bow shock nose point from the planet, radii of curvature and bluntnesses of the shock surface at this point and a parameter describing the transition to the asymptotic downstream slope of the shock. It is shown that for an analytical description of the surface of the shock, it is sufficient to approximate its radius of curvature and bluntness in two perpendicular planes. Another parameter used in this model is the bow shock skewing angle, appearing when the interplanetary magnetic field directed at an angle with respect to the solar wind velocity. This parameter naturally vanishes when the magnetic field of the solar wind is directed either parallel or perpendicular to the velocity vector. The exact analytical solution for the asymptotic downstream slope of the MHD Mach cone is modified to take into account the skewing angle of the bow shock.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".