MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2951427533 · doi:10.1051/swsc/2019017

Time-of-day/time-of-year response functions of planetary geomagnetic indices

2019· article· en· W2951427533 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Aude Chambodut, I. Finch, Luke Barnard, M. J. Owens, Carl Haines

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Space Weather and Space Climate · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of SouthamptonAlberta Agricultural Research InstituteUniversità degli Studi dell'AquilaUniversity of ReadingCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueU.S. Geological SurveyScience and Technology Facilities CouncilBritish Geological SurveyNatural Environment Research CouncilCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesSight Research UKFlorida Institute of Technology
Mots-clésEarth's magnetic fieldUniversal TimeSolar zenith angleZenithGeomagnetic latitudeForcing (mathematics)ObservatoryIonosphereLatitudeIndex (typography)Local timeMode (computer interface)Sensitivity (control systems)Function (biology)MeteorologySolar cycleEnvironmental scienceMathematicsAtmospheric sciencesPhysicsStatisticsGeodesySolar windGeologyAstrophysicsComputer scienceGeophysicsMagnetic field

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Aims: To elucidate differences between commonly-used mid-latitude geomagnetic indices and study quantitatively the differences in their responses to solar forcing as a function of Universal Time ( UT ), time-of-year ( F ), and solar-terrestrial activity level. To identify the strengths, weaknesses and applicability of each index and investigate ways to correct for any weaknesses without damaging their strengths. Methods: We model how the location of a geomagnetic observatory influences its sensitivity to solar forcing. This modelling for a single station can then be applied to indices that employ analytic algorithms to combine data from different stations and thereby we derive the patterns of response of the indices as a function of UT , F and activity level. The model allows for effects of solar zenith angle on ionospheric conductivity and of the station’s proximity to the midnight-sector auroral oval: it employs coefficients that are derived iteratively by comparing data from the current aa index stations (Hartland and Canberra) to simultaneous values of the am index, constructed from chains of stations in both hemispheres. This is done separately for eight overlapping bands of activity level, as quantified by the am index. Initial estimates were obtained by assuming the am response is independent of both F and UT and the coefficients so derived were then used to compute a corrected F - UT response pattern for am . This cycle was repeated until it resulted in changes in predicted values that were below the adopted uncertainty level (0.001%). The ideal response pattern of an index would be uniform and linear (i.e., independent of both UT and F and the same at all activity levels). We quantify the response uniformity using the percentage variation at any activity level, V = 100 ( σ S /〈 S 〉), where S is the index’s sensitivity at that activity level and σ S is the standard deviation of S : both S and σ S were computed using the eight UT ranges of the 3-hourly indices and 20 equal-width ranges of F . As an overall metric of index performance, we take an occurrence-weighted mean of V , V av , over the eight activity-level bins. This metric would ideally be zero and a large value shows that the index compilation is introducing large spurious UT and/or F variations into the data. We also study index performance by comparisons with the SME and SML indices, compiled from a very large number of stations, and with an optimum solar wind “coupling function”, derived from simultaneous interplanetary observations. Results: It is shown that a station’s response patterns depend strongly on the level of geomagnetic activity because at low activity levels the effect of solar zenith angle on ionospheric conductivity dominates over the effect of station proximity to the midnight-sector auroral oval, whereas the converse applies at high activity levels. The metric V av for the two-station aa index is modelled to be 8.95%, whereas for the multi-station am index it is 0.65%. The ap (and hence Kp ) index cannot be analyzed directly this way because its construction employs tabular conversions, but the very low V av for am allows us to use 〈 ap 〉/〈 am 〉 to evaluate the UT-F response patterns for ap . This yields V av = 11.20% for ap . The same empirical test applied to the classical aa index and the new “homogenous” aa index, aa H (derived from aa using the station sensitivity model), yields V av of, respectively, 10.62% (i.e., slightly higher than the modelled value) and 5.54%. The ap index value of V av is shown to be high because it exaggerates the average semi-annual variation and has an annual variation giving a lower average response in northern hemisphere winter. It also contains a strong artefact UT variation. We derive an algorithm for correcting for this uneven response which gives a corrected ap value, ap C , for which V av is reduced to 1.78%. The unevenness of the ap response arises from the dominance of European stations in the network used and the fact that all data are referred to a European station (Niemegk). However, in other contexts, this is a strength of ap , because averaging similar data gives increased sensitivity and more accurate values on annual timescales, for which the UT - F response pattern is averaged out.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,173
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,003
Tête enseignante GPT0,197
Écart entre enseignants0,194 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations32
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Space Weather and Space ClimateMême sujetIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsTravaux en français237 207