MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1556176986

A study of the wind regime at an altitude of about 100 km by the meteor-radar method

2016· article· en· W1556176986 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
I. A. Lysenko, A. D. Orlyansky, Yu. I. Portnyagin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeteor (satellite)RadarMeteorologyMeteoroidThermosphereAltitude (triangle)GeologyOver-the-horizon radarSoviet unionGeographyGeophysicsPhysicsMathematicsIonosphereEngineeringPolitical scienceTelecommunicationsAstronomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The meteor-radar method was proposed by Manning, Villard & Peterson (I950) in 1950 and in recent years has been widely used for investigating lower thermosphere circulation. Wind measurements by the meteor-radar method have been carried out in Australia (Elford I959), England (Greenhow & Neufeld I96I; Muller I966), U.S.A. (Barnes I969), France (Spizzichino I969), U.S.S.R. (Lysenko et al. I969), Canada (Hook I970), Germany (Jacobs I958). In the Soviet Union the meteor-radar method is used at nine stations (Lysenko et al. I969). At three of them Heiss Island (80.5? N), Obninsk (550 N) and Molodezhnaya (67? S) the experiments are carried out by the Institute of Experimental Meteorology (I.E.M.). In this paper the wind results obtained by I.E.M. at these sites in 1964-8 are described. In addition, data obtained by B. L. Kashcheyev at Kharkov, K. A. Karimov at Frunze, E. I. Fialko at Kiev, R. P. Chebotaryev at Dushanbe and M. K. Nazarenko at Tomsk and those published in Lysenko et al. (I969) have been used here.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAstro and Planetary Science→French-language works237,207→