MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025224856 · doi:10.1126/science.1211001

The Global Magnetic Field of Mercury from MESSENGER Orbital Observations

2011· article· en· W2025224856 on OpenAlexaff
B. J. Anderson, C. L. Johnson, H. Korth, Michael E. Purucker, R. M. Winslow, J. A. Slavin, Sean C. Solomon, R. L. McNutt, J. M. Raines, T. H. Zurbuchen

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetopauseMagnetometerEquatorDipolePhysicsMercury's magnetic fieldMagnetic dipoleMagnetic fieldOffset (computer science)GeodesyEarth radiusSpacecraftDipole model of the Earth's magnetic fieldGeophysicsLatitudeL-shellEarth's magnetic fieldMagnetosphereGeologyAstronomySolar windInterplanetary magnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetometer data acquired by the MESSENGER spacecraft in orbit about Mercury permit the separation of internal and external magnetic field contributions. The global planetary field is represented as a southward-directed, spin-aligned, offset dipole centered on the spin axis. Positions where the cylindrical radial magnetic field component vanishes were used to map the magnetic equator and reveal an offset of 484 ± 11 kilometers northward of the geographic equator. The magnetic axis is tilted by less than 3° from the rotation axis. A magnetopause and tail-current model was defined by using 332 magnetopause crossing locations. Residuals of the net external and offset-dipole fields from observations north of 30°N yield a best-fit planetary moment of 195 ± 10 nanotesla-R(M)(3), where R(M) is Mercury's mean radius.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations341
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207