Validation of the space weather modeling framework using ground‐based magnetometers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) can disrupt power grid operations, causing significant interference for many people; therefore, predictions of ground‐based magnetic perturbations and their time derivatives are quite important. This study quantifies how well the University of Michigan's Global MHD code predicts approximately 150 ground‐based magnetometer traces for a number of storm‐time intervals. It is found that in order to accurately represent the magnetic perturbation, Biot‐Savart integrals over the entire hemisphere are needed, especially when calculating the vertical component. The 4 May 1998 storm is examined in detail. The code compares well with some stations, quantified by a normalized root mean squared error and cross correlation, while missing even the general trends for other stations. When multiple magnetometer station perturbations are averaged together, the model does an adequate job in the north and vertical components but reverses the trends in the eastward component. The code does significantly better when comparing an AL ‐like index but does not have as strong a variation as the actual data. Comparison of dB / dt in a wide window rather than simultaneously shows better model performance in capturing events but worse in yielding false alarms. It is further found that the MHD code models the magnetic perturbations better in the summer hemisphere than in the winter hemisphere.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it