Time of flight and direction of arrival of HF radio signals received over a path along the midlatitude trough: Theoretical considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observations from an HF radio experiment on a subauroral path between Sweden and the UK near sunspot maximum in 2001 are compared with the position of the midlatitude trough according to a statistical model. Periods of off‐great circle propagation, occurring predominantly in winter and equinoctial nights at frequencies 7–11 MHz, show characteristics consistent with scattering from field‐aligned irregularities in the northern trough wall and/or auroral oval. Very little reflection and/or scattering was apparent from directions to the south of the great circle path. These results are in marked contrast with those from a similar experiment conducted near sunspot minimum in 1994 in Canada, during which both southerly and northerly deviations were observed in the 5–15 MHz range. The contrasting results were simulated using ray tracing through a model ionosphere incorporating a model of the trough and, optionally, precipitation. The observed off‐great circle propagation features on the European path could only be reproduced when precipitation within the northern trough wall/auroral zone was included, whereas features of the northerly and southerly deviations observed in the Canadian experiment could be simulated by the presence of the trough walls and without the need for precipitation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".