Origin of the interhemispheric potential mismatch of merging cells for interplanetary magnetic field <i>B</i><sub><i>Y</i></sub>‐dominated periods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the dawn‐to‐dusk component of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF BY) is dominant, ionospheric convection exhibits a basic two‐cell pattern with significant dawn‐dusk and interhemispheric asymmetries. For IMF BY > 0 the duskside merging cell potential in the Northern Hemisphere is much higher than that in the Southern Hemisphere, and the dawnside merging cell potential in the Southern Hemisphere is much higher than that in the Northern Hemisphere. The situation is reversed for IMF BY < 0. This interhemispheric potential mismatch originates from reconnection of overdraped lobe field lines and closed flankside field lines. This type of north‐south asymmetric reconnection does not affect the merging cell potentials in the same hemisphere as the reconnection point, whereas in the opposite hemisphere, it diminishes the potential of the dawnside (or duskside) Dungey‐type merging cell. Thus the total dawnside (or duskside) merging cell potential in one hemisphere is smaller than that in the other hemisphere by the reconnection voltage associated with the asymmetric reconnection.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".