MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014352752 · doi:10.1029/2001ja000257

Field line resonances in a stretched magnetotail: CANOPUS optical and magnetometer observations

2002· article· en· W2014352752 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. A. Wanliss, R. Rankin, J. C. Samson, V. T. Tikhonchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField linePhysicsMagnetic fieldField (mathematics)Alfvén waveMagnetosphereMagnetometerComputational physicsLine (geometry)GeophysicsSpectral lineMathematicsGeometryMagnetohydrodynamicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ground‐based observations support the existence of 1–4 mHz field line resonances (FLRs) at auroral latitudes. The low frequencies suggest that many nightside FLRs are excited on stretched magnetic field lines in the inner plasma sheet. Data from the Canadian Auroral Network for the OPEN Program Unified Study (CANOPUS) magnetometers and photometers on 21 February 1993 indicate a FLR with a peak at 2.4 mHz, and that of 31 January 1997 indicate a peak at 1.3 mHz. In this paper, models of FLRs and models of stretched magnetotail topologies deduced from optical data are compared with the observations. The FLR model is independently constrained by a parametric near‐Earth magnetotail model that allows us to make direct comparisons with the observed FLR frequency. For the two case studies mentioned above, we are able to show that the theoretical FLR spectrum, computed on stretched field lines, is comparable to the low‐frequency experimental observations.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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