MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1816256709 · doi:10.1002/2014ja020061

An assessment of the role of soft electron precipitation in global ion upwelling

2014· article· en· W1816256709 on OpenAlexaff
R. J. Redmon, W. K. Peterson, L. Andersson, P. G. Richards, A. W. Yau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsUpwellingElectron precipitationPrecipitationIonosphereElectronAtmospheric sciencesSatellitePhysicsIonGeophysicsFlux (metallurgy)Environmental sciencePlasmaClimatologyComputational physicsMeteorologyGeologyOceanographyMagnetosphereMaterials scienceAstronomyNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The role of electron precipitation in the auroral zone in driving thermal O + upwelling is explored by comparison of observations and model results. Previous reports have shown how the ambiguities of such an assessment can be reduced when the problem is addressed in dynamic boundary‐related coordinates. Upwelling ion data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellites are compared using a modeling framework based on the Field Line Interhemispheric Plasma (FLIP) ionospheric model. We focus on geomagnetically quiet intervals, that is, nonstorm times with Dst > −50 nT. We find that low‐energy (<100 eV) electrons are a significant driver of O + upwelling on the nightside, particularly in the 2100 magnetic local time sector. Our analysis suggests that DMSP electron observations and electron precipitation models derived from them significantly underestimate the actual flux of soft (i.e., <100 eV) electrons.

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)0.001
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 score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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