A statistical comparison of the AMIE derived and DMSP‐SSIES observed high‐latitude ionospheric electric field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ion drift velocities and electric field derived from the Assimilative Mapping of Ionospheric Electrodynamics technique (AMIE) are compared with the same parameters observed by the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program's (DMSP) Special Sensor–Ions, Electrons, and Scintillation (SSIES) instrument. In addition the along‐track cross polar cap potential, the correlation between the curves, and other metrics are compared and those results are binned by various criteria. The criteria include spacecraft, year, season, and magnetic activity level. We observed a reasonable correlation between the AMIE results and DMSP data with respect to the along‐track potential, though the AMIE results tend to show a lower potential by some 30–50 percent, depending on spacecraft and orbit. Spacecraft in the same general orbits show similar relations with AMIE, implying that there is good intersatellite calibration for the DMSP array. There is a great deal of variability in the correlation, depending on season and activity level, and correlations with some of the spacecraft show a solar cycle dependance. It is further found that when we set a multifaceted criteria on each orbit for a DMSP‐AMIE match, including along‐track potential, V y correlation, and peak potential locations, the results correspond between 35% and 55% for the dawn‐dusk spacecraft, while they only correspond 7%–12% of the time for noon‐midnight satellites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".