MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012279556 · doi:10.1007/s00585-000-1390-2

Effects of substorms on the stormtime ring current index <i>Dst</i>

2000· article· en· W2012279556 on OpenAlexfundno aff
G. Rostoker

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales Geophysicae · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarthquake Detection and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsSubstormExpansiveRing currentStormIonospherePhysicsGeomagnetic stormCurrent (fluid)Phase (matter)MagnetosphereGeophysicsGeologyMeteorologyEarth's magnetic fieldMagnetic fieldQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. There has been some discussion in recent times regarding whether or not substorm expansive phase activity plays any role of importance in the formation of the stormtime ring current. I explore this question using the Kp index as a proxy for substorm expansive phase activity and the Dst index as a proxy for symmetric ring current strength. I find that increases in Dst are mildly related to the strength of substorm expansive phase activity during the development of the storm main phase. More surprisingly, I find that the strength of Dst during the storm recovery phase is positively correlated with the strength of substorm expansive phase activity. This result has an important bearing on the question of how much the Dst index reflects activity other than that of the stormtime symmetric ring current strength for which it is supposed to be a proxy.Key words: Ionosphere (electric fields and currents) - Magnetospheric physics (current systems; storms and substorms)

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)0.006
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations16
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales GeophysicaeSame topicEarthquake Detection and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207