On a possible connection between the longitudinally propagating near‐Earth plasma sheet and auroral arc waves: A reexamination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Azimuthally propagating low‐frequency waves (or wavy structures) often occur in a localized region of the near‐Earth plasma sheet and auroral arc immediately prior to auroral breakup. Although both are believed to be magnetospheric and ionospheric manifestations of a plasma sheet instability that may lead to substorm onset, the fundamental coupling processes behind their relationship are not yet understood. To address this question, we reexamined in detail a fortuitous conjunction event of prebreakup near‐Earth plasma sheet and auroral arc waves, initially reported by Uritsky et al. (2009) using the Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms space‐ground observations. The event exhibited a morphological one‐to‐one association between longitudinally propagating arc wave (LPAW) in the ionosphere and Pi2/Pc4 range wave activity in the plasma sheet. Our analysis revealed that (1) the LPAW was the periodic luminosity modulation of the growth phase arc by faint, diffuse, green line‐dominated auroral patches propagating westward along/near the arc, rather than some type of small‐scale arc structuring, such as auroral beads/rays/undulations; and (2) the plasma sheet wave, which had a diamagnetic nature, propagated duskward with accompanying coincident modulation of field‐aligned fluxes of 0.1–30 keV electrons. These findings suggest that the LPAW was likely connected to the plasma sheet wave via modulated diffuse precipitation of hard plasma sheet electrons (> ~1 keV), not via filamentary field‐aligned currents, as expected from the ballooning instability regime. Another potential implication is that such prebreakup low‐frequency wave activity in the near‐Earth plasma sheet is not necessarily guaranteed to initiate prebreakup auroral arc structuring.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".