On the equations of warped disc dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The 1D evolution equations for warped discs come in two flavours: For very viscous discs, the internal torque vector $\boldsymbol {G}$ is uniquely determined by the local conditions in the disc, and warps tend to damp out rapidly if they are not continuously driven. For very inviscid discs, on the other hand, $\boldsymbol {G}$ becomes a dynamic quantity, and a warp will propagate through the disc as a wave. The equations governing both regimes are usually treated separately. A unified set of equations was postulated recently by Martin et al., but not yet derived from the underlying physics. The standard method for deriving these equations is based on a perturbation series expansion, which is a powerful, but somewhat abstract technique. A more straightforward method is to employ the warped shearing box framework of Ogilvie & Latter, which so far has not yet been used to derive the equations for the wave-like regime. The goal of this paper is to analyse the warped disc equations in both regimes using the warped shearing box framework, to derive a unified set of equations, valid for small warps, and to discuss how our results can be interpreted in terms of the affine tilted-slab approach of Ogilvie.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".