EFFECT OF FLOW-TUBE GEOMETRY ON SOLAR WIND PROPERTIES Letter to the Editor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. A mathematical description of the solar wind flow-tube geometry is proposed. The ex-pansion factor of the flow tube f (r) ( = a/r2, r is the heliocentric distance and a is the flow-tube cross-section area) increases monotonically from 1 at the coronal base to fm at rc, and approaches its asymptotic value f ∞ nearly in a width of 2σc. The flow tube with fm = f ∞ is demonstrated to be approximately equivalent to that given by Kopp and Holzer (1976) for the fast solar wind, and it presumably represents slow wind tubes as fm is substantially larger than f∞. In terms of an Alfvén wave-driven solar wind model, the effect of the flow-tube geometry on solar wind properties is examined. It is found that with the same flow conditions at the coronal base an expansion factor which increases monotonically with the radial distance results in a fast solar wind solution, whereas a flow tube which undergoes an expansion-contraction-reexpansion process creates a slow solar wind solution. Among the four flow-tube parameters the maximum expansion factor fm has the strongest effect, and the associated Laval-nozzle formed by the contraction and reexpansion of the flow tube plays a crucial role in determining solar wind properties. It is suggested that one must take the effect of the flow-tube geometry into account while constructing reasonable flow-tube models for the slow solar wind. 1.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".