MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1497924036 · doi:10.1002/2015ja021090

Electron precipitation from EMIC waves: A case study from 31 May 2013

2015· article· en· W1497924036 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mark A. Clilverd, Roger Duthie, Rachael L. Hardman, Aaron T. Hendry, Craig J. Rodger, Tero Raita, M. J. Engebretson, M. Lessard, D. W. Danskin, D. K. Milling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaNatural Resources Canada
FundersBritish Antarctic SurveyNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of AlbertaAugsburg UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSubstormElectron precipitationAtmospheric sciencesLocal timePhysicsVan Allen ProbesRiometerPrecipitationVan Allen radiation beltGeophysicsSatelliteAstrophysicsIonosphereMagnetosphereMagnetic fieldMeteorologyAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract On 31 May 2013 several rising tone electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) waves with intervals of pulsations of diminishing periods were observed in the magnetic local time afternoon and evening sectors during the onset of a moderate/large geomagnetic storm. The waves were sequentially observed in Finland, Antarctica, and western Canada. Coincident electron precipitation by a network of ground‐based Antarctic Arctic Radiation‐belt Dynamic Deposition VLF Atmospheric Research Konsortia and riometer instruments, as well as the Polar‐orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) electron telescopes, was also observed. At the same time, POES detected 30–80 keV proton precipitation drifting westward at locations that were consistent with the ground‐based observations, indicating substorm injection. Through detailed modeling of the combination of ground and satellite observations, the characteristics of the EMIC‐induced electron precipitation were identified as latitudinal width of 2–3° or ΔL = 1 Re, longitudinal width ~50° or 3 h magnetic local time, lower cutoff energy 280 keV, typical flux 1 × 104 el cm−2 sr−1 s−1 > 300 keV. The lower cutoff energy of the most clearly defined EMIC rising tone in this study confirms the identification of a class of EMIC‐induced precipitation events with unexpectedly low‐energy cutoffs of <400 keV.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations74
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Space PhysicsSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207