MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531870511 · doi:10.1029/2004rs003236

Assessment of ionosphere tomographic modeling performance using GPS data during the October 2003 geomagnetic storm event

2006· article· en· W1531870511 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRadio Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsMRF Geosystems (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTECTotal electron contentIonosphereGlobal Positioning SystemGeomagnetic stormEarth's magnetic fieldStormGPS signalsSpace weatherGeodesyEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyRemote sensingGeologyComputer scienceAssisted GPSGeographyGeophysicsTelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precise ionospheric modeling is important for single‐frequency Global Positioning System (GPS) users to achieve optimal positioning accuracy because the ionospheric signal delay is now the largest error source for positioning and navigation with GPS. The ionospheric modeling during ionospheric storms is particularly critical since the signal delay may be higher than normal and may differ significantly from the broadcast ionosphere model (currently employed by single‐frequency users). In this study, a tomographic technique is used to model the ionosphere over North America using data collected from a network of dual‐frequency GPS receivers. In support of real‐time applications of the ionosphere model, short‐term (5‐min) forecasts of ionospheric total electron content (TEC) are also performed. To validate the accuracy of the forecast ionospheric TEC, a comparison of the TEC predictions with the observed TEC data (which are inferred from dual‐frequency GPS observations) is carried out. Analyses are conducted using GPS data recorded during a 2003 geomagnetic storm event (29–31 October). Results indicate that under less disturbed conditions, an average accuracy of 5 ∼ 6.5 total electron content units (TECU, 1 TECU = 10 16 el m −2 ) can be obtained for the vertical TEC prediction and that 80% of slant TEC can be recovered by the model predictions. During extreme ionospheric storm periods ( Kp = 9), the vertical TEC forecasting accuracy has a degradation of 2 ∼ 3 TECU from the 3‐day mean value, and the relative error is several percent to 10% larger than the 3‐day average level.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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