Reasons why some solar wind changes do not trigger substorms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that a northward turning of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) or a reduction in the magnitude of IMF By component can trigger a substorm. Also a solar wind dynamic pressure enhancement has been found to trigger a substorm under strongly southward IMF conditions. Solar wind changes directed opposite to those of, or not satisfying the conditions of, these known triggers may be considered as inherently nontriggers. In the present paper we have examined 12 events where more than one solar wind quantity change simultaneously and no substorm is triggered. We suggest that nontriggering by the solar wind changes studied in the present work can be explained by the following three reasons: (1) there is a lack of, or insufficient, substorm growth phase development prior to the potential triggering change; (2) the solar wind change is an inherently nontriggering change; (3) the nullifying effect occurs, where one quantity changes in the direction of a substorm trigger and simultaneously another quantity changes in the direction opposite to that of a trigger. The nontriggering types found in this study are consistent with the suggestion that variations of the solar wind that do not reduce the convection strength within the inner plasma sheet do not trigger substorms, which is opposite to what is expected from a triggering solar wind variation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".