MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1593617336 · doi:10.1029/2001gl013785

Does the braking of the fast plasma flow trigger a substorm?: A study of the August 14, 1996, event

2002· article· en· W1593617336 on OpenAlexaff
S. Ohtani, Ryo Yamaguchi, Hideaki Kawano, F. Creutzberg, J. B. Sigwarth, L. A. Frank, T. Mukai

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Optometric Education Trust Fund
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstormPhysicsGeosynchronous orbitGeophysicsSatelliteMagnetic fieldPlasmaLocal timeFlux (metallurgy)Plasma sheetEvent (particle physics)Flow (mathematics)MagnetosphereAstrophysicsMechanicsAstronomyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a substorm event of August 14, 1996, the Geotail satellite was at XGSM ∼ −10 RE aligned with the GOES 8 satellite in the X direction in the premidnight sector. Two Pi2 onsets were identified. Whereas the first onset was associated with a pseudobreakup, an auroral bulge developed following the second onset. At the pseudobreakup Geotail observed a fast (>900 km/s) plasma flow along with dipolarization, but the geosynchronous magnetic field became stretched subsequently. In contrast, for the main onset, the magnetic field dipolarized at GOES 8, although the associated total (time‐integrated) transport of magnetic flux at Geotail was no stronger than that for the pseudobreakup. It is suggested that the braking of the fast flow does not necessarily cause tail current disruption in a large scale, and there is an additional (or alternative) condition to suffice for an initial brightening to develop to a global substorm.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations44
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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