MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969078569 · doi:10.1029/1999gl010761

A continuous view of the dawn‐dusk polar cap

2000· article· en· W1969078569 on OpenAlexaff
D. J. McEwen, Yongliang Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuskPolarPolar capNoonAirglowDaytimeField lineBrightnessMagnetosphereLatitudeEarth's magnetic fieldGeophysicsPhysicsGeologyAtmospheric sciencesAstronomyMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous monitoring of airglow and auroral emissions over Eureka (89° magnetic latitude) through each winter has shown that the dusk and dawn boundaries of the polar cap can be routinely seen when the IMF Bz is northward. When this condition prevails the auroral oval shrinks poleward, and the polar boundaries are clearly and continuously seen in photometric dusk‐dawn meridian scans of OI 630 nm emission brightness. This fact is illustrated with two 24‐hr days of records on December 19, 1996 and January 19, 1998. These examples show, and others similarly, that polar arcs emerge from the dusk or dawn flanks of the auroral oval (depending on the sign of By) and thus occur on closed field lines. In a few cases polar arcs emerge from the midnight or noon sector of the oval and extend along the sun‐earth line to cross the Eureka meridian, bifurcating the polar cap. This new technique for monitoring the polar cap dusk‐dawn extent and all auroral activity within promises to be valuable for diagnostic studies of both polar auroral activity and magnetospheric topology during solar wind changes and major sun‐earth events.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207