MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010772205 · doi:10.1029/2005ja011216

Discrepancy between the nighttime molecular ion composition given by the International Reference Ionosphere model and airglow measurements at low latitudes

2006· article· en· W2010772205 on OpenAlexaff
M. J. Nicolls, M. N. Vlasov, M. C. Kelley, G. G. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirglowIonosphereDissociative recombinationIonEquatorF regionLongitudePhysicsElectron densityAtomic physicsIncoherent scatterLatitudeAtmospheric sciencesLine (geometry)ElectronRecombinationGeophysicsChemistryAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 630‐nm nighttime airglow is radiated by O( 1 D ) atoms, which are produced by the dissociative recombination of O 2 + ions. The typical approach used to calculate the red line emission rate at night is based on the assumption that O 2 + is mainly produced by the reaction of O + with molecular oxygen. In the case that the O 2 + density is much smaller than the O + density, [O + ] = n e in the F 2 region. Good agreement between measured nighttime integrated emission rates and the emission rates calculated by this typical approach, using both electron densities measured by incoherent scatter radars and given by the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) model, has been shown. However, the O 2 + densities given by the IRI model are much higher than the densities produced by the reaction of O + with O 2 , and these densities do not correspond to the condition [O + ] = n e . In this case, the typical approach cannot be applied and molecular ions must be included in the emission rate calculations. The integrated emission rates calculated including the molecular ion density given by the IRI model have been found to be much higher than the measured 630.0‐nm emission rates. This discrepancy takes place at latitudes below about ±30° in the western longitude sector, mainly for the period from March to November, and the disagreement is higher than 1 order of magnitude at the equator. In addition, we model the F 2 region green line O( 1 S ) emission at 557.7 nm resulting from the dissociative recombination of O 2 + . Using measurements of this volume emission rate made by the Wind Imaging Interferometer (WINDII) satellite, we are able to show that IRI overestimates the O 2 + density (and ion fraction) on the bottomside of the F 2 region. A revision of the ion composition in the IRI model on the bottomside seems to be needed on the basis of these results. Airglow measurements may be useful in constraining such a revision. A revision could utilize the formulae for the relationship between the molecular ion densities and neutral densities derived here, using the Mass Spectrometer Incoherent Scatter (MSIS) neutral densities and the IRI electron density. These calculations are based on the assumption that O 2 + and NO + are only produced through ion‐molecular reactions. Such a revision would correct the magnitude and altitudinal dependence of the molecular ion fraction in the IRI model.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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