Combined THEMIS and ground‐based observations of a pair of substorm‐associated electron precipitation events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using ground‐based subionospheric radio wave propagation data from two very low frequency (VLF) receiver sites, riometer absorption data, and THEMIS satellite observations, we examine in detail energetic electron precipitation (EEP) characteristics associated with two substorm precipitation events that occurred on 28 May 2010. In an advance on the analysis undertaken by Clilverd et al. (2008), we use phase observations of VLF radio wave signals to describe substorm‐driven EEP characteristics more accurately than before. Using a >30 keV electron precipitation flux of 5.6 × 107 el. cm−2 sr−1 s−1 and a spectral gradient consistent with that observed by THEMIS, it was possible to accurately reproduce the peak observed riometer absorption at Macquarie Island (L = 5.4) and the associated NWC radio wave phase change observed at Casey, Antarctica, during the second, larger substorm. The flux levels were near to 80% of the peak fluxes observed in a similar substorm as studied by Clilverd et al. (2008). During the initial stages of the second substorm, a latitude region of 5 < L < 9 was affected by electron precipitation. Both substorms showed expansion of the precipitation region to 4 < L< 12 more than 30 min after the injection. While both substorms occurred at similar local times, with electron precipitation injections into approximately the same geographical region, the second expanded in an eastward longitude more slowly, suggesting the involvement of lower‐energy electron precipitation. Each substorm region expanded westward at a rate slower than that exhibited eastward. This study shows that it is possible to successfully combine these multi‐instrument observations to investigate the characteristics of 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".