MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1612414466 · doi:10.1002/jgra.50203

Transient electron precipitation during oscillatory BBF braking: THEMIS observations and theoretical estimates

2013· article· en· W1612414466 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E. V. Panov, Anton Artemyev, W. Baumjohann, R. Nakamura, V. Angelopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsWhistlerElectron precipitationElectronPhysicsVan Allen radiation beltPitch angleComputational physicsGeophysicsTransient (computer programming)MagnetosphereAtomic physicsMagnetic fieldNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) data acquired on 17 March 2008 between 10:22 and 10:32 UT to study the mechanism of transient electron injection into the loss cone during oscillatory bursty bulk flow (BBF) braking. During braking, transient regions of piled‐up magnetic fluxes are formed. Perpendicular electron anisotropy observed in these regions (presumably caused by betatron perpendicular electron heating) may be a free‐energy source of coexisting whistler waves. Parallel electrons with energies between 1 and 5 keV disappear inside these regions, and transient auroral forms (both rather discrete arcs and diffuse‐like aurora around the arcs) are observed simultaneously by the ground all‐sky imager at Fort Yukon. We use quasi‐linear theory of electron resonant interaction with whistler waves and also estimate the effectiveness of electron nonlinear capture by strong whistler waves. We suggest that electron injection into the loss cone is caused by: (1) scattering by whistler waves and (2) parallel acceleration of electrons captured by stronger whistler waves.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations56
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Space PhysicsSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207