Inner magnetospheric onset preceding reconnection and tail dynamics during substorms: Can substorms initiate in two different regions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a detailed ground‐based and in situ examination of two substorms on 9 April 2011 providing one of the most detailed observations of a series of activations to date. Using auroral observations we demonstrate that the initial signature of substorm onset is a localized brightening on closed field lines. In both cases auroral onset precedes any geosynchronous indications of substorm onset. Despite excellent in situ coverage of the near‐midnight plasma sheet there is no evidence of tail flows or topological changes which might indicate the initiation of reconnection and related disturbances prior to auroral onset. Similarly, no auroral streamers are observed prior to either onset. For the second substorm, following auroral onset and dipolarization of the geosynchronous field there is evidence of a rapid thinning of the plasma sheet followed by a secondary auroral activation and dipolarization of the magnetotail outside of geosynchronous orbit. This morphological change suggests that near‐Earth neutral line reconnection is eventually triggered in the tail, but only following the earlier auroral onset. These observations demonstrate that expansion phase onset is not always initiated by reconnection in the tail. Finally, our observations suggest that activations at the near‐Earth neutral line, or related to plasma instabilities and near‐Earth onset, can develop independently during expansion phase onset. In this paradigm, free energy stored during the growth phase can be stored in the stretched tail and the inner magnetosphere where the dipole field begins to stretch. During expansion phase onset either region could become unstable, independent of the other, leading to substorm initiation and onset.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".