MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2040983452 · doi:10.1029/1999ja900454

Intense growth phase events of substorms

2000· article· en· W2040983452 on OpenAlexaff
Jih‐Hong Shue, Y. Kamide, R. D. Elphinstone, Н. Нишитани

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrojetInterplanetary magnetic fieldSolar windGeophysicsEarth's magnetic fieldIonospherePolarInterplanetary spaceflightAtmospheric sciencesPhysicsGeologyMagnetic fieldAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past few decades, several events of the intense growth phase preceding the expansion onset of substorms were reported. We reexamine these events using an extensive set of data, including ground‐based magnetograms at auroral latitudes, solar wind data from the Wind and IMP 8 satellites, and auroral UV images from the Polar and Viking satellites. Magnetograms show that the intense auroral electrojet is located in the early morning sector during these events. A common feature among the corresponding solar wind conditions for these events is the existence of a period of southward interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) preceded by a prolonged northward IMF. This intense growth phase, however, seems to be independent of the IMF By polarity. Enhanced auroras in the early morning sector appear during the growth phase. These auroras are consistent with relatively large geomagnetic disturbances during these events, indicating that enhanced conductances, combined with enhanced electric field caused by southward IMF, play an important role in the auroral electrojet during these intense growth‐phase events.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics→French-language works237,207→