MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1482339067 · doi:10.1002/2014ja020772

The Earth's bow shock velocity distribution function

2015· article· en· W1482339067 on OpenAlexaff
K. Meziane, A. M. Hamza, M. Maksimović, Thamer Alrefay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBow shock (aerodynamics)Shock (circulatory)PhysicsMach numberSolar windInterplanetary spaceflightMoving shockShock waveMechanicsOblique shockMagnetosheathGeophysicsComputational physicsMagnetopausePlasma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is well established that interplanetary disturbances cause the Earth's bow shock to move sunward or earthward. Since the launch of the Cluster mission, precise determination of the shock velocity was carried out allowing for the possibility to perform sophisticated investigations about the shock dynamics. The shock normal and velocity are determined for 381 Earth's bow shock crossings using data from the Spatio Temporal Analysis of Field Fluctuations ‐ Spectrum Analyzer experiment on board the Cluster spacecraft. We have found that the observed radial shock velocity is well fitted by a Maxwellian for speeds less than 80 km s −1 . The Maxwellian fit provides a standard deviation km s −1 . Assuming that the shock motion is exclusively controlled by the time rate of change of solar wind ram pressure, a probability density for the shock velocity near the nose region is constructed using the basic elements of probability theory. The obtained results are in a very good agreement with the observations when typical conditions of the solar wind are considered. The present study indicates that the ram pressure is a predominant parameter in shock dynamics and the relevance of the Mach number is not a determinant.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Space PhysicsSame topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207