MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1847145802 · doi:10.1002/2014ja020783

The ULF wave foreshock boundary: Cluster observations

2015· article· en· W1847145802 on OpenAlexaff
N. Andrés, K. Meziane, C. Mazelle, C. Bertucci, D. O. Gómez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersSecretaría de Ciencia y Técnica, Universidad de Buenos Aires
KeywordsForeshockGeophysicsCluster (spacecraft)Boundary (topology)GeologyPhysicsSeismologyComputer scienceAftershockMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The interaction of backstreaming ions with the incoming solar wind in the upstream region of the bow shock gives rise to a number of plasma instabilities from which ultralow frequency (ULF) waves can grow. Because of their finite growth rate, the ULF waves are spatially localized in the foreshock region. Previous studies have reported observational evidence of the existence of a ULF wave foreshock boundary, whose geometrical characteristics are very sensitive to the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) cone angle. The statistical properties of the ULF wave foreshock boundary (UWFB) are examined in detail using Cluster data. A new identification of the UWFB is presented using a specific and accurate criterion for identification of boundary crossings. This criterion is based on the degree of IMF rotation as Cluster crosses the boundary. The obtained UWFB is compared with previous results reported in the literature as well as with theoretical predictions. Also, we examined the possible connection between the foreshock boundary properties and the ion emission mechanisms at the bow shock.

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 score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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