MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1515706716 · doi:10.1002/jgra.50231

Constructing the frequency and wave normal distribution of whistler‐mode wave power

2013· article· en· W1515706716 on OpenAlexafffund
C. E. J. Watt, A. W. Degeling, R. Rankin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsPhysicsComputational physicsMagnetosphereWave propagationWhistlerWave powerWavenumberOpticsPlasmaPower (physics)Quantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a new methodology that allows the construction of wave frequency distributions due to growing incoherent whistler‐mode waves in the magnetosphere. The technique combines the equations of geometric optics (i.e., raytracing) with the equation of transfer of radiation in an anisotropic lossy medium to obtain spectral energy density as a function of frequency and wavenormal angle. We describe the method in detail and then demonstrate how it could be used in an idealized magnetosphere during quiet geomagnetic conditions. For a specific set of plasma conditions, we predict that the wave power peaks off the equator at ∼15° magnetic latitude. The new calculations predict that wave power as a function of frequency can be adequately described using a Gaussian function, but as a function of wavenormal angle, it more closely resembles a skew normal distribution. The technique described in this paper is the first known estimate of the parallel and oblique incoherent wave spectrum as a result of growing whistler‐mode waves and provides a means to incorporate self‐consistent wave‐particle interactions in a kinetic model of the magnetosphere over a large volume.

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)0.000
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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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