Resolute Bay CADI ionosonde drifts, PolarDARN HF velocities, and cross polar cap potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, velocities measured by the Rankin Inlet and Inuvik PolarDARN HF radars over Resolute Bay (RB) are compared with measurements from the RB CADI ionosonde to investigate the consistency of the measurements. Two types of comparisons are performed: 1‐D, where each PolarDARN radar line‐of‐sight velocity is plotted against CADI velocity projected onto appropriate radar beam, and 2‐D, where the PolarDARN merged velocity is compared with the full CADI vector. In both cases, velocities were found to statistically agree. For the 1‐D comparison, the velocities were comparable in ∼85% of cases. For the 2‐D comparison, a minor tendency for larger PolarDARN merge velocities (∼60 m/s) was noticed. The second task performed is a comparison of the SuperDARN cross polar cap potential (CPCP) and the CADI‐based CPCP and their dependence on the CADI velocity. Linear dependences were found allowing for inter‐conversion between these parameters. For large plasma drifts, the SuperDARN CPCPs were found to be much smaller than the CADI‐based CPCPs hinting that the separation between the foci of a large‐scale convection pattern is often underestimated in the SuperDARN convection mapping.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".