A reexamination of latitudinal limits of substorm‐produced energetic electron precipitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The primary sources of energetic electron precipitation (EEP) which affect altitudes <100 km (>30 keV) are expected to be from the radiation belts and during substorms. EEP from the radiation belts should be restricted to locations between L = 1.5 and 8, while substorm‐produced EEP is expected to range from L = 4 to 9.5 during quiet geomagnetic conditions. Therefore, one would not expect any significant D region impact due to electron precipitation at geomagnetic latitudes beyond about L = 10. In this study we report on large unexpectedly high‐latitude D region ionization enhancements, detected by an incoherent scatter radar at L ≈ 16, which appear to be caused by electron precipitation from substorms. We go on to reexamine the latitudinal limits of substorm‐produced EEP using data from multiple low‐Earth orbiting spacecraft, and demonstrate that the precipitation stretches many hundreds of kilometers poleward of the previously suggested limits. We find that a typical substorm will produce significant EEP over the International Geomagnetic Reference Field L shell range L = 4.6 ± 0.2–14.5 ± 1.2, peaking at L = 6–7. However, there is significant variability from event to event; in contrast to the median case, the strongest 25% of substorms have significant EEP in the range spanning L = 4.1 ± 0.1–20.7 ± 2.2, while the weakest 25% of substorms have significant EEP in the range spanning L = 5.5 ± 0.1–10.1 ± 0.7. We also examine the occurrence probability of very large substorms, focusing on those events which appear to be able to disable geostationary satellites when they are located near midnight magnetic local time. On average, these large substorms occur approximately one to six times per year, a significant rate, given the potential impact on satellites.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".