MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1550642787 · doi:10.1002/2015gl064707

Accurately specifying storm‐time ULF wave radial diffusion in the radiation belts

2015· article· en· W1550642787 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Dimitrakoudis, I. R. Mann, Georgios Balasis, Constantinos Papadimitriou, A. Anastasiadis, Ioannis A. Daglis

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFP7 SpaceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionEuropean Social FundNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsVan Allen radiation beltPhysicsMagnetometerComputational physicsWave powerSolar windDiffusionVan Allen ProbesStormGeophysicsPower (physics)AccelerationMagnetosphereMeteorologyClassical mechanicsMagnetic fieldQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ultralow frequency (ULF) waves can contribute to the transport, acceleration, and loss of electrons in the radiation belts through inward and outward diffusion. However, the most appropriate parameters to use to specify the ULF wave diffusion rates are unknown. Empirical representations of diffusion coefficients often use Kp ; however, specifications using ULF wave power offer an improved physics‐based approach. We use 11 years of ground‐based magnetometer array measurements to statistically parameterize the ULF wave power with Kp , solar wind speed, solar wind dynamic pressure, and Dst . We find that Kp is the best single parameter to specify the statistical ULF wave power driving radial diffusion. Significantly, remarkable high energy tails exist in the ULF wave power distributions when expressed as a function of Dst . Two‐parameter ULF wave power specifications using Dst as well as Kp provide a better statistical representation of storm‐time radial diffusion than any single variable alone.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207