MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999504515 · doi:10.1029/2009gl040777

Longitudinally propagating arc wave in the pre‐onset optical aurora

2009· article· en· W1999504515 on OpenAlexaff
V. M. Uritsky, Jun Liang, E. Donovan, E. Spanswick, D. J. Knudsen, W. Liu, J. W. Bonnell, K. H. Glaßmeier

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArc (geometry)GeologyMeteorologySeismologyOpticsPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the first systematic observational evidence for a traveling periodic structure in the pre‐onset optical aurora – the longitudinally propagating arc wave (LPAW) – associated with flapping oscillations in the magnetotail. The LPAW is characterized by azimuthally moving intensity enhancements inside auroral arcs as seen by THEMIS ground‐based all‐sky imagers. It travels westward in the pre‐midnight auroral sector during the 10–20 minutes preceding auroral breakup with a velocity of 2–10 km/s, time period 40–110 s, and wavelength 250–420 km. Magnetically conjugate measurements by THEMIS satellites show low frequency plasma oscillations consistent with the parameters of the arc wave in the course of current sheet thinning. When mapped into tail, wavelength (4800–9400 km) and velocity (70–190 km/s) of the LPAW are compatible with observations and theoretical predictions for current sheet flapping motions. Our results strongly suggest that LPAW is an auroral footprint of the drift wave mode (kink, sausage, ballooning, etc.) in a stretched magnetotail.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207