Current reduction in a pseudo‐breakup event: THEMIS observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pseudo‐breakup events are thought to be generated by the same physical processes as substorms. This paper reports on the cross‐tail current reduction in an isolated pseudo‐breakup observed by three of the THEMIS probes (THEMIS A (THA), THEMIS D (THD), and THEMIS E (THE)) on 22 March 2010. During this pseudo‐breakup, several localized auroral intensifications were seen by ground‐based observatories. Using the unique spatial configuration of the three THEMIS probes, we have estimated the inertial and diamagnetic currents in the near‐Earth plasma sheet associated with flow braking and diversion. We found the diamagnetic current to be the major contributor to the current reduction in this pseudo‐breakup event. During flow braking, the plasma pressure was reinforced, and a weak electrojet and an auroral intensification appeared. After flow braking/diversion, the electrojet was enhanced, and a new auroral intensification was seen. The peak current intensity of the electrojet estimated from ground‐based magnetometers, ~0.7 × 10 5 A, was about 1 order of magnitude lower than that in a typical substorm. We suggest that this pseudo‐breakup event involved two dynamical processes: a current‐reduction associated with plasma compression ahead of the earthward flow and a current‐disruption related to the flow braking/diversion. Both processes are closely connected to the fundamental interaction between fast flows, the near‐Earth ambient plasma, and the magnetic field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".