MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026759491 · doi:10.1029/2005ja011366

Substorms during the 10–11 August 2000 sawtooth event

2006· article· en· W2026759491 on OpenAlexaff
M. G. Henderson, R. M. Skoug, E. Donovan, M. F. Thomsen, G. D. Reeves, M. H. Denton, H. J. Singer, R. L. McPherron, S. B. Mende, T. J. Immel, J. B. Sigwarth, L. A. Frank

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstormSawtooth waveGeosynchronous orbitSolar windPhysicsGeophysicsFlux (metallurgy)MagnetosphereAstrophysicsIonosphereAtmospheric sciencesPlasmaAstronomySatellite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sawtooth events have been identified at geosynchronous orbit as large‐amplitude quasiperiodic (2–4 hour period) modulations of the energetic electron and ion fluxes. They are called sawtooth events because the shape of the flux versus time profiles are composed of rapid increases followed by gradual decreases that resemble the teeth on a saw blade. Although much of the phenomenology associated with sawtooth events is substorm‐like, there is still debate as to whether the individual teeth are substorms or not. Here we examine each of the teeth associated with the 10–11 August 2000 sawtooth event in detail. We find that all but one of the teeth were associated with injections at geosynchronous orbit and that most of the teeth were consistent with the hypothesis that they are predominantly caused by unusually large and longitudinally extended substorms. A few were unclear or complex, and the final flux enhancement at 1845:36 UT was not a substorm but a solar wind shock‐associated disturbance. In addition, the presence of numerous dispersionless flux perturbations in the LANL SOPA data provides support for the hypothesis that solar wind pressure variations can modulate the flux profiles to some extent. For the substorm events we find that the geosynchronous particle injections were neither globally simultaneous nor globally dispersionless but were instead consistent with a nightside/duskside source in most cases. Similarly, we show that the field dipolarizations were also not global and simultaneous. Each of the substorms was also associated with high‐latitude negative H bays, middle‐ and low‐latitude positive H bays, a partial recovery in Sym‐H, and the onset of Pi2 ULF pulsations. In addition, we show that the auroral distribution develops in a systematic way during each cycle of a sawtooth substorm event. Specifically, a localized auroral onset develops on the lower branch of a thinned double‐oval distribution. The location of onset is typically premidnight and often occurs to the west of intense omega band forms. This is followed by westward, eastward, and poleward expansion and the copious production of auroral streamers which can develop in complex patterns including a “spoke‐like” morphology. The double‐oval configuration thins again during the stretching phase until the next onset occurs and the cycle repeats. A schematic representation of the auroral dynamics associated with sawtooth substorms is also presented.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

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

Citations82
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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