MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968944323 · doi:10.1029/2008ja013041

Mapping guided Alfvén wave magnetic field amplitudes observed on the ground to equatorial electric field amplitudes in space

2009· article· en· W1968944323 on OpenAlexaff
L. G. Ozeke, I. R. Mann, I. J. Rae

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmplitudePhysicsElectric fieldMagnetic fieldAlfvén waveField (mathematics)Quantum electrodynamicsComputational physicsOpticsMagnetohydrodynamicsQuantum mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A technique for converting the magnetic field amplitudes of guided toroidal and guided poloidal waves observed on the ground into the equatorial electric field amplitudes of the waves in space is presented. Analytic solutions of the guided toroidal and guided poloidal Alfvén wave equations are used to determine the ratio of the equatorial electric field amplitude to the ionospheric magnetic amplitude, E eq / b i . Using these solutions, we show that in general E eq / b i only depends very weakly on the Pedersen conductance, Σ P , and is linearly proportional to the guided Alfvén waves' frequency. We also present numerical solutions of the guided Alfvén wave equations illustrating how the value of E eq / b i varies as a function of L shell for a range of different realistic field‐aligned plasma density profiles. These results can be used to determine the equatorial wave electric field amplitude, E eq , in space using the magnetic field amplitude observed on the ground, b g . Accurate estimates of E eq are crucial to understanding the role and importance of ultralow frequency waves on the energization and radial transport of radiation belt electrons.

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)0.001
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 score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations53
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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