Multispacecraft current estimates at swarm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During the first several months of the three‐spacecraft Swarm mission all three spacecraft came repeatedly into close alignment, providing an ideal opportunity for validating the proposed dual‐spacecraft method for estimating current density from the Swarm magnetic field data. Two of the Swarm spacecraft regularly fly side‐by‐side in closely similar orbits, while the third at times approaches the other two. This provides a data set which under certain assumptions of stationarity of the magnetic field can produce 2, 3, 4, 5 (or more) point measurements, which can be cross compared. We find that at low Earth orbit the use of time‐shifted positions allow stable estimates of current density to be made and can verify temporal effects as well as validating the interpretation of the current components as arising predominantly from field‐aligned currents. In the case of four‐spacecraft configurations we can resolve the full vector current and therefore can check the perpendicular as well as parallel current density components directly, together with the quality factor for the estimates directly (for the first time in situ at low Earth orbit).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".