MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1881698201 · doi:10.1029/2007rs003706

A comparison of CADI‐inferred <i>F</i> region plasma convection and DMSP ion drift above Resolute Bay

2007· article· en· W1881698201 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. V. Koustov, J. W. MacDougall, G. E. Kadochnikov

Bibliographic record

VenueRadio Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIonosondePlasmaConvectionPhysicsF regionIonGeodesyGeologyIonosphereAtmospheric sciencesGeophysicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CADI ionosonde estimates of the F region plasma convection over Resolute Bay (NWT, Canada, MLAT = 83.5°) are compared with nearly simultaneous ion drift measurements on board DMSP satellites passing in the vicinity of the station. First, CADI vectors are projected onto the cross‐track directions of DMSPs for 141 events and compared with ion drifts measured by DMSPs in these directions. The best linear fit line is found to have a slope of 0.75 and a shift of −13 m/s indicating good correspondence between the instruments with CADI showing minor underestimation. Then, a fully two‐dimensional comparison is performed by considering (1) magnitudes and azimuths and (2) eastward and northward components of the CADI and DMSP vectors. Reasonable agreement is shown as well. For both comparisons, the data spread is small; the correlation coefficients are of the order of 0.7–0.8. The strongest differences between the instruments were found to occur for the periods with spotty enhancement of the plasma flow detected by one or both instruments.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadio ScienceSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207