MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971385574 · doi:10.1063/1.1355678

Ground-based observations and plasma instabilities in auroral substorms

2001· article· en· W1971385574 on OpenAlexafffundabout
E. Friedrich, J. C. Samson, I. Voronkov

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Plasmas · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsPhysicsSubstormIonosphereGeophysicsSpace physicsVortexPlasmaInstabilityMagnetosphereMeteorologyMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the “grand challenge” problems in space science today involves determining what mechanism triggers the intensification and expansive phase of the magnetospheric substorm. Remote sensing of the ionosphere has provided some clues to the process, leading researchers to the conclusion that the physics of the intensification is inherently fast and explosive. In particular, ground-based observations show the brightening of the auroral arc and the formation of large scale vortex structures in the ionosphere to take place on time scales of tens of seconds. High earthward pressure gradients, enhanced field line curvature, and strong convective flows with large-amplitude westward components, point to the shear flow ballooning instability (SFBI) as the mechanism leading to the intensification. New results from the meridian scanning photometers and the all sky imager of the Canadian Auroral Network for the OPEN Program Unified Study array show the time delay between the formation of these vortex structures and the beginning of enhanced reconnection in the midtail region of the magnetotail to be of the order of 1–5 min. This timing presents a serious constraint for many substorm models. In this paper we shall discuss the observational support for the SFBI model and highlight some of the other plasma instabilities thought to lead to expansive phase onset.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of PlasmasSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207