Physical Electron Belt Model from Jupiter's surface to the orbit of Europa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The three‐dimensional model, Salammbô‐3D, which was initially developed to model the Earth's radiation belts, has been adapted to Jupiter's radiation environment. As a first step, this model has been validated between L = 1 and L = 6 (L: MacIlwain parameter), just inside Io's obit. In order to extend our three‐dimensional (3‐D) code up to L = 9.5, just inside Europa's orbit, a more realistic magnetic field than the dipole field used before has been introduced in Salammbô. Two magnetic field models are available: The model of Connerney [1981] and the one of Khurana [1997] . Both of them are composed of two parts: An internal magnetic field, intrinsic to the planet, and an external magnetic field, due to the current sheet. Results deduced from Salammbô‐3D, using these two different models, will be shown and compared. Then, to validate our 3‐D code, from Jupiter up to Europa's orbit, comparisons between simulations and two kinds of observations will be done. Firstly, Salammbô results will be compared with spacecraft data (Pioneer 10 and 11) and secondly with radio observations (Very Large Array: VLA). Indeed, with the help of Salammbô‐3D and a synchrotron model, two‐dimensional images of Jupiter's synchrotron emission can be deduced. It is then possible to investigate the global radiation belt shape by comparing simulations and VLA observations. Two important results emerge from this study. First, the extension of our model outside Io's orbit aims to show that Io does not play any role on relativistic electron dynamics, i.e., it does not create losses of particles like the inner moons (Metis, Adrastea, Amalthea, and Thebe). The second important result is that contrary to Io, Europa seems to play a significant role in determining the electron distribution in the Jovian radiation belts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".