MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1749774267 · doi:10.1002/2013gl058581

Spatial localization and ducting of EMIC waves: Van Allen Probes and ground‐based observations

2014· article· en· W1749774267 on OpenAlexaffabout
I. R. Mann, Maria Usanova, K. R. Murphy, Matthew Robertson, D. K. Milling, A. Kale, C. A. Kletzing, J. R. Wygant, S. A. Thaller, Tero Raita

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVan Allen ProbesPlasmaspherePhysicsGeophysicsVan Allen radiation beltElliptical polarizationMagnetometerPolarization (electrochemistry)Earth's magnetic fieldComputational physicsIonosphereMagnetosphereGeologyGeodesyAstrophysicsMagnetic fieldOpticsLinear polarization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract On 11 October 2012, during the recovery phase of a moderate geomagnetic storm, an extended interval (> 18 h) of continuous electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) waves was observed by Canadian Array for Real‐time Investigations of Magnetic Activity and Solar‐Terrestrial Environment Program induction coil magnetometers in North America. At around 14:15 UT, both Van Allen Probes B and A (65° magnetic longitude apart) in conjunction with the ground array observed very narrow (ΔL ~ 0.1–0.4) left‐hand polarized EMIC emission confined to regions of mass density gradients at the outer edge of the plasmasphere at L ~ 4. EMIC waves were seen with complex polarization patterns on the ground, in good agreement with model results from Woodroffe and Lysak (2012) and consistent with Earth's rotation sweeping magnetometer stations across multiple polarization reversals in the fields in the Earth‐ionosphere duct. The narrow L‐widths explain the relative rarity of space‐based EMIC occurrence, ground‐based measurements providing better estimates of global EMIC wave occurrence for input into radiation belt dynamical models.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations51
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207