MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000289821 · doi:10.1029/2010ja015361

Two‐step evolution of auroral acceleration at substorm onset

2010· article· en· W2000289821 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Morioka, Yoshizumi Miyoshi, Yukinaga Miyashita, Yasumasa Kasaba, Hiroaki Misawa, Fuminori Tsuchiya, Ryuho Kataoka, Akira Kadokura, T. Mukai, K. Yumoto, D. Menietti, G. K. Parks, K. Liou, F. Honary, E. Donovan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryScience and Technology Facilities CouncilCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsSubstormAccelerationPhysicsGeophysicsIonosphereElectric fieldMagnetosphereParticle accelerationAltitude (triangle)AstrophysicsPlasmaClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sudden formation of parallel electric fields in the magnetosphere‐ionosphere (M‐I) coupling system is essential to complete substorm onset. From this standpoint, we focus substorm ignition on field‐aligned acceleration by studying the dynamical behavior of auroral kilometric radiation. Field‐aligned auroral acceleration shows a distinct two‐step evolution at substorm onset: the activation of low‐altitude acceleration (h ∼ 4000–5000 km) which corresponds to auroral initial brightening and the subsequent abrupt breakout of high‐altitude acceleration (h ∼ 6000–12,000 km) which corresponds to auroral breakup. Cases when only low‐altitude acceleration (first‐step evolution) is activated are pseudosubstorms. This indicates that the second evolution of field‐aligned acceleration divides full substorm from pseudosubstorm. The statistical relationship between the plasma flow burst in the plasma sheet and its response to the M‐I coupling region shows that about 65% of flow bursts cause pseudobreakup/initial brightening (low‐altitude acceleration) and one third of them develops into full substorm (low‐altitude and high‐altitude accelerations), while the magnitude of flow velocity does not necessarily distinguish between pseudobreakup and full substorm. This suggests that some plasma flow bursts originate field‐aligned current which first enhance low‐altitude acceleration, and the increasing field‐aligned current induces second acceleration above the preexisting low‐altitude acceleration as a consequence of current/current‐driven instabilities. In this sense, the substorm is finally ignited in the auroral M‐I coupling region.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.311
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations31
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207