Bibliographic record
Abstract
The original substorm development was portrayed as the appearance and subsequent development of discrete auroral arcs, forming an auroral bulge in the midnight sector extending into the evening hours. As early as the 1970’s, it became clear that the auroral oval had a finite latitudinal width, and that auroral activations tended to occur in two distinct zones, viz. the poleward and equatorward edges of the oval. This large scale structure which is most evident in the evening and midnight sectors has been termed the double oval, and there is good reason to believe that the development of the auroral substorm must be discussed in the framework of the double oval. It is generally accepted that the onset of the substorm expansion phase occurs on the equatorward branch of the double oval, and that the latter stages of the expansion phase feature significant auroral activations on the poleward branch. In this paper, the significance of poleward boundary intensifications (PBIs) as they pertain to auroral surge activity will be discussed. The question will be asked as to the physical mechanisms responsible for PBI’s, and how these region of strong auroral activity map into the magnetotail and this mapping will be key to addressing the overall physics of
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".