Large-scale aspects and temporal evolution of pulsating aurora
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[1] Pulsating aurora is a common phenomenon generally believed to occur mainly in the aftermath of a substorm, where dim long-period pulsating patches appear. The study determines the temporal and spatial evolution of pulsating events using two THEMIS all-sky imager stations, at Gillam (66.18 magnetic latitude, 332.78 magnetic longitude, magnetic midnight at 0634 UT) and Fort Smith, (67.38 magnetic latitude, 306.64 magnetic longitude, magnetic midnight at 0806 UT) along roughly the same invariant latitude. Parameters have been calculated from a database of 74 pulsating aurora events from 119 days of good optical data within the period from September 2007 through March 2008 as identified with the Gillam camera. It is shown that the source region of pulsating aurora drifts or expands eastward, away from magnetic midnight, for premidnight onsets and that the spatial evolution is more complicated for postmidnight onsets, which has implications for the source mechanism. The most probable duration of a pulsating aurora event is roughly 1.5 h, while the distribution of possible event durations includes many long (several hours) events. This may suggest that pulsating aurora is not strictly a substorm recovery phase phenomenon but rather a persistent, long-lived phenomenon that may be temporarily disrupted by auroral substorms. Observations from the Gillam station show that in fact, pulsating aurora is quite common with the occurrence rate increasing to around 60% for morning hours, with 69% of pulsating aurora onsets occurring after substorm breakup.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".