Contrasting the responses of three different ground‐based instruments to energetic electron precipitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to make best use of the opportunities provided by space missions such as the Radiation Belt Storm Probes, we determine the response of complementary subionospheric radiowave propagation measurements (VLF), riometer absorption measurements, cosmic noise absorption, and GPS‐produced total electron content (vTEC) to different energetic electron precipitation (EEP). We model the relative sensitivity and responses of these instruments to idealized monoenergetic beams of precipitating electrons, and more realistic EEP spectra chosen to represent radiation belts and substorm precipitation. In the monoenergetic beam case, we find riometers are more sensitive to the same EEP event occurring during the day than during the night, while subionospheric VLF shows the opposite relationship, and the change in vTEC is independent. In general, the subionospheric VLF measurements are much more sensitive than the other two techniques for EEP over 200 keV, responding to flux magnitudes two‐three orders of magnitude smaller than detectable by a riometer. Detectable TEC changes only occur for extreme monoenergetic fluxes. For the radiation belt EEP case, clearly detectable subionospheric VLF responses are produced by daytime fluxes that are ∼10 times lower than required for riometers, while nighttime fluxes can be 10,000 times lower. Riometers are likely to respond only to radiation belt fluxes during the largest EEP events and vTEC is unlikely to be significantly disturbed by radiation belt EEP. For the substorm EEP case both the riometer absorption and the subionospheric VLF technique respond significantly, as does the change in vTEC, which is likely to be detectable at ∼3–4 total electron content units.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".