MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382401385 · doi:10.1007/s11214-023-00980-0

Evolution of Solar and Stellar Dynamo Theory

2023· article· en· W4382401385 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Charbonneau, D. D. Sokoloff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpace Science Reviews · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamoPhysicsPlanetary scienceSolar dynamoAstronomyDynamo theoryAstrophysicsAstrobiologySolar physicsStellar physicsStellar evolutionMagnetic fieldStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, written as a general historical and technical introduction to the various contributions of the collection “Solar and Stellar Dynamo: A New Era”, we review the evolution and current state of dynamo theory and modelling, with emphasis on the solar dynamo. Starting with a historical survey, we then focus on a set of “tension points” that are still left unresolved despite the remarkable progress of the past century. In our discussion of these tension points we touch upon the physical well-posedness of mean-field electrodynamics; constraints imposed by magnetic helicity conservation; the troublesome role of differential rotation; meridional flows and flux transpost dynamos; competing inductive mechanisms and Babcock–Leighton dynamos; the ambiguous precursor properties of the solar dipole; cycle amplitude regulation and fluctuation through nonlinear backreaction and stochastic forcing, including Grand Minima; and the promises and puzzles offered by global magnetohydrodynamical numerical simulations of convection and dynamo action. We close by considering the potential bridges to be constructed between solar dynamo theory and modelling, and observations of magnetic activity in late-type stars.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpace Science ReviewsSame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207