MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979585634 · doi:10.1029/2003gl017592

Gyrophase‐restricted 100 keV–2 MeV ion beams near the foreshock boundary

2003· article· en· W1979585634 on OpenAlexaff
K. Meziane, M. Wilber, R. P. Lin, G. K. Parks

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsForeshockPhysicsGyroradiusIonSolar windAtomic physicsRange (aeronautics)Earth radiusNuclear physicsPlasmaMagnetosphereAftershockMaterials scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on gyrophase‐restricted ion beams with energies extending from ∼100 keV up to ∼2 MeV, observed by Wind in the Earth's distant (∼65 RE) foreshock. The ion gyrophases seen were nearly constant during periods when the distance to the shock contact point could be expected to vary by several RE, when there was no significant wave activity. At times the distributions had two peaks ∼180° apart in gyrophase. These were consistent with a remotely‐sensed energetic ion foreshock region having a thickness <2 gyroradii (∼1.5 RE for 0.5 MeV protons with pitch‐angle α = 30°). In this picture, gaps in phase space would correspond to particles with guiding centers outside of the energetic foreshock region. Similar observations over a decade of energies (100 keV–2 MeV) suggest that the region thickness scales with gyroradius. According to this interpretation, we have determined a rough range of geometries for which energetic particle production is favored. (Eg., θBn ∼70–80° for 500 keV ions with α = 30°.)

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207