MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989228238 · doi:10.5194/angeo-29-2287-2011

Interhemispheric comparison of GPS phase scintillation at high latitudes during the magnetic-cloud-induced geomagnetic storm of 5–7 April 2010

2011· article· en· W1989228238 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

VenueAnnales Geophysicae · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of New BrunswickNatural Resources CanadaCommunications Research Centre Canada
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e VulcanologiaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsInterplanetary scintillationGeomagnetic stormIonosphereScintillationEarth's magnetic fieldTECAtmospheric sciencesSolar windGeologyPhysicsCoronal mass ejectionGeophysicsMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Arrays of GPS Ionospheric Scintillation and TEC Monitors (GISTMs) are used in a comparative scintillation study focusing on quasi-conjugate pairs of GPS receivers in the Arctic and Antarctic. Intense GPS phase scintillation and rapid variations in ionospheric total electron content (TEC) that can result in cycle slips were observed at high latitudes with dual-frequency GPS receivers during the first significant geomagnetic storm of solar cycle 24 on 5–7 April 2010. The impact of a bipolar magnetic cloud of north-south (NS) type embedded in high speed solar wind from a coronal hole caused a geomagnetic storm with maximum 3-hourly Kp = 8- and hourly ring current Dst = −73 nT. The interhemispheric comparison of phase scintillation reveals similarities but also asymmetries of the ionospheric response in the northern and southern auroral zones, cusps and polar caps. In the nightside auroral oval and in the cusp/cleft sectors the phase scintillation was observed in both hemispheres at about the same times and was correlated with geomagnetic activity. The scintillation level was very similar in approximately conjugate locations in Qiqiktarjuaq (75.4° N; 23.4° E CGM lat. and lon.) and South Pole (74.1° S; 18.9° E), in Longyearbyen (75.3° N; 111.2° E) and Zhongshan (74.7° S; 96.7° E), while it was significantly higher in Cambridge Bay (77.0° N; 310.1° E) than at Mario Zucchelli (80.0° S; 307.7° E). In the polar cap, when the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) was strongly northward, the ionization due to energetic particle precipitation was a likely cause of scintillation that was stronger at Concordia (88.8° S; 54.4° E) in the dark ionosphere than in the sunlit ionosphere over Eureka (88.1° N; 333.4° E), due to a difference in ionospheric conductivity. When the IMF tilted southward, weak or no significant scintillation was detected in the northern polar cap, while in the southern polar cap rapidly varying TEC and strong phase scintillation persisted for many hours. This interhemispheric asymmetry is explained by the difference in the location of solar terminator relative to the cusps in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. Solar terminator was in the immediate proximity of the cusp in the Southern Hemisphere where sunlit ionospheric plasma was readily convected into the central polar cap and a long series of patches was observed. In contrast, solar terminator was far poleward of the northern cusp thus reducing the entry of sunlit plasma and formation of dense patches. This is consistent with the observed and modeled seasonal variation in occurrence of polar cap patches. The GPS scintillation and TEC data analysis is supported by data from ground-based networks of magnetometers, riometers, ionosondes, HF radars and all-sky imagers, as well as particle flux measurements by DMSP 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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.229 · 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