MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022336920 · doi:10.1029/2011ja016504

The impact of the January 15, 2010, annular solar eclipse on the equatorial and low latitude ionospheric densities

2011· article· en· W2022336920 on OpenAlexaff
R. K. Choudhary, K. M. Ambili, Surendra Sunda, B. M. Pathan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIonosondeSolar eclipseEquatorial electrojetIonosphereMagnetometerEquatorTotal electron contentGeologyPhysicsAtmospheric sciencesGeodesyGeophysicsEarth's magnetic fieldEclipseLatitudeTECPlasmaElectron densityAstronomyMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[1] The January 15, 2010, solar annular eclipse crossed the magnetic equator in the middle of the day over India, in a region instrumented with several magnetometers, Total Electron Content stations using GPS data, and an ionosonde located very near the center of the eclipse. With the help of a one-dimensional model appropriate for the region of interest we show that the ionosonde data was consistent with a lower F region plasma that was moving upwards with only modest velocities in the morning hours and moving resolutely downwards in the afternoon hours. This motion agreed well with the local magnetometer data which revealed a weakened electrojet taking place in the morning hours while a full-blown counter-electrojet was present in the afternoon hours. We show that the unusual solar eclipse-induced electrodynamics resulted in a reduction in the Total Electron Content depletion not just at the magnetic equator but also, more markedly, in the Equatorial Ionization Anomaly (EIA) zone, a further 10 degrees to the north. This latter point clearly shows that the eclipse led to a cut-off in the supply of plasma provided through the equatorial fountain, by altering a fundamental aspect of the equatorial electrodynamics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations69
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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