MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988373644 · doi:10.1029/2004eo190010

What is the physical meaning of the AE index?

2004· article· en· W1988373644 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrojetIonosphereMagnetosphereEarth's magnetic fieldIndex (typography)Geomagnetic stormMeaning (existential)PhysicsTerm (time)GeophysicsAtmospheric sciencesAstrophysicsMagnetic fieldComputer sciencePhilosophyAstronomyEpistemologyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We would like to propose ceasing the derivation and distribution of the AE (Auroral electrojet) index because AE has no physically interpretable meaning and is therefore of no scientific value. Note that the term “ AE indices” is different from the term “ AE index;” the former includes the AU and AL indices, whereas the latter is just the AE index itself. (See below for the definition of AU and AL .) Since the introduction of the AE indices by Davis and Sugiura [1966], scientists have relied on the indices to monitor the level of geomagnetic disturbance resulting from the auroral electrojets and hence, by proxy, to specify the state of the magnetosphere and the ionosphere. The AE index was defined by the separation between the upper and lower envelopes of the superposed H component plots from auroral‐zone magnetic observatories. The upper and lower envelopes were defined as the AU and AL indices, respectively Thus, there is the relationship given by AE = AU ‐ AL .

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.210 · 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