Quantified energy dissipation rates in the terrestrial bow shock: 2. Waves and dissipation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present the first quantified measure of the energy dissipation rates, due to wave‐particle interactions, in the transition region of the Earth's collisionless bow shock using data from the Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms spacecraft. Our results show that wave‐particle interactions can regulate the global structure and dominate the energy dissipation of collisionless shocks. In every bow shock crossing examined, we observed both low‐frequency (<10 Hz) and high‐frequency ( 10 Hz) electromagnetic waves throughout the entire transition region and into the magnetosheath. The low‐frequency waves were consistent with magnetosonic‐whistler waves. The high‐frequency waves were combinations of ion‐acoustic waves, electron cyclotron drift instability driven waves, electrostatic solitary waves, and whistler mode waves. The high‐frequency waves had the following: (1) peak amplitudes exceeding δB∼ 10 nT and δE∼ 300 mV/m, though more typical values were δB∼ 0.1–1.0 nT and δE∼ 10–50 mV/m; (2) Poynting fluxes in excess of 2000 μW m−2 (typical values were ∼1–10 μW m−2); (3) resistivities > 9000 Ω m; and (4) associated energy dissipation rates >10 μW m−3. The dissipation rates due to wave‐particle interactions exceeded rates necessary to explain the increase in entropy across the shock ramps for ∼90% of the wave burst durations. For ∼22% of these times, the wave‐particle interactions needed to only be ≤ 0.1% efficient to balance the nonlinear wave steepening that produced the shock waves. These results show that wave‐particle interactions have the capacity to regulate the global structure and dominate the energy dissipation of collisionless shocks.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".