Comparison of intense nightside shock‐induced precipitation and substorm activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sudden variations of the solar wind dynamic pressure frequently induce dayside enhancements of auroral activity with features such as high‐latitude arcs, low‐latitude proton flashes, and enhancement of auroral precipitation propagating dawnward and duskward from noon to the night sector. In some cases, these shocks also induce enhanced activity during which the power precipitated into the night sector may reach values as high as observed during substorms. Several studies have shown that the triggering of nightside‐enhanced precipitation is more likely during periods of southward interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) components. Early works showed that substorm‐like activity is not frequent after a shock and suggested that shocks may not be considered as substorm triggers. We examine up to what point substorm‐like nightside activity triggered by a shock is comparable to an isolated substorm. For this purpose, we analyze three events morphologically similar to substorms and occurring within less than 20 min after the arrival of a pressure pulse on the front of the magnetosphere. Different features of these events such as the mean energy of precipitated electrons, the latitudinal motion of boundaries before and after onset, and the power precipitated into the nightside sector are compared with isolated substorms. We conclude that the characteristics of shock‐induced substorms appear very similar to those of isolated substorms. Shocks are able to trigger substorms when they hit an unstable magnetosphere. The interpretation is that the perturbation due to the shock induces a substorm by closure of the plasma sheet magnetic field. For the events presented in this study, the instability result from a period of southward IMF or stretching of the magnetic tail induced by a previous shock.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".