MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028462438 · doi:10.1029/1999ja000442

Large‐scale vortex dynamics in the evening and midnight auroral zone: Observations and simulations

2000· article· en· W2028462438 on OpenAlexafffundabout
I. Voronkov, E. Donovan, B. J. Jackel, J. C. Samson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVortexPhysicsBreakupGeophysicsGeologyMeteorologyMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use Canadian Auroral Network for the OPEN Program Unified Study All‐Sky Imager (ASI) and Meridional Scanning Photometer (MSP) data as the basis for a study of the dynamics of large‐scale (hundreds of kilometers) auroral vortices. We consider 28 events corresponding to a range of auroral activity levels. Three of these are presented in detail, one corresponding to growth phase, one to pseudo‐breakup and one to expansive phase onset. We show that vortex formation starts from a discrete arc with half thickness δ of the order of 20 km. This arc intensifies near the poleward boundary of enhanced proton aurora, as seen in the Hydrogen β (Hβ) MSP data and becomes azimuthally structured. This structuring is in the form of vortices with wavelength of the order of ∼ 2πδ. The vortices intensify and extend radially, leading to broadening of the initial arc. While the sizes and growth rates of the vortices vary, the overall scenario of vortex evolution is similar for all of the events. Structures that develop during the growth phase saturate at latitudes matching the poleward boundary of Hβ emissions and pseudo‐breakup structures saturate further poleward. Expansive phase onset vortices expand poleward in a similar fashion, but we do not observe any saturation stage, presumably due to limitations imposed by the ASI field of view. We present results of shear flow ballooning vortex modeling in which we used initial conditions and parameters consistent with our observations. On the basis of our model results, we speculate that all of these experimentally observed vortices are the result of shear flow ballooning instability in the hot proton region in the near‐Earth plasma sheet.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 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

Citations39
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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