SuperDARN observations of medium‐scale gravity wave pairs generated by Joule heating in the auroral zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is known that Joule heating caused by currents associated with enhanced electric fields in the auroral ionosphere can generate gravity waves. Some modeling studies found that each short‐lived (∼10 min) electric field enhancement in the ionosphere leads to the generation of a single gravity wave pulse. Observational evidence of such single wave pulses has been reported in the ground‐scatter echoes seen by the SuperDARN HF radars. In this paper, we present new SuperDARN observations which show that, under certain conditions, each electric field enhancement can generate a pair of gravity waves. On December 2, 1998, the IMF Bz had a perturbation with a period of ∼100 min and caused oscillations in the ionospheric electric field at the same period. Each positive or negative half‐cycle of the oscillating electric field gave rise to one Joule heating enhancement which, in turn, generated a pair of gravity waves (two wave pulses). Six successive gravity wave pairs were observed. We suggest that the reason for two gravity wave pulses was that the Joule heating events in the present case were of longer duration than those in the previous events. We also show that the periodic velocities seen in the far‐range ionospheric echoes are due to the direct auroral electric field modulation and not to indirect modulation caused by the equatorward‐moving gravity waves.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".