MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041842896 · doi:10.5194/angeo-22-4329-2004

Coordinated polar spacecraft, geosynchronous spacecraft, and ground-based observations of magnetopause processes and their coupling to the ionosphere

2004· article· en· W2041842896 on OpenAlexaff
G. Le, S.-H. Chen, Yihua Zheng, C. T. Russell, J. A. Slavin, C. Y. Huang, S. M. Petrinec, T. E. Moore, Jaron Samson, H. J. Singer, K. Yumoto

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales Geophysicae · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetopauseGeophysicsMagnetosheathPhysicsMagnetosphereSolar windGeosynchronous orbitField lineNoonIonosphereInterplanetary magnetic fieldMagnetic fieldAtmospheric sciencesAstronomySatellite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. In this paper, we present in-situ observations of processes occurring at the magnetopause and vicinity, including surface waves, oscillatory magnetospheric field lines, and flux transfer events, and coordinated observations at geosynchronous orbit by the GOES spacecraft, and on the ground by CANOPUS and 210° Magnetic Meridian (210MM) magnetometer arrays. On 7 February 2002, during a high-speed solar wind stream, the Polar spacecraft was skimming the magnetopause in a post-noon meridian plane for ~3h. During this interval, it made two short excursions and a few partial crossings into the magnetosheath and observed quasi-periodic cold ion bursts in the region adjacent to the magnetopause current layer. The multiple magnetopause crossings, as well as the velocity of the cold ion bursts, indicate that the magnetopause was oscillating with an ~6-min period. Simultaneous observations of Pc5 waves at geosynchronous orbit by the GOES spacecraft and on the ground by the CANOPUS magnetometer array reveal that these magnetospheric pulsations were forced oscillations of magnetic field lines directly driven by the magnetopause oscillations. The magnetospheric pulsations occurred only in a limited longitudinal region in the post-noon dayside sector, and were not a global phenomenon, as one would expect for global field line resonance. Thus, the magnetopause oscillations at the source were also limited to a localized region spanning ~4h in local time. These observations suggest that it is unlikely that the Kelvin-Helmholz instability and/or fluctuations in the solar wind dynamic pressure were the direct driving mechanisms for the observed boundary oscillations. Instead, the likely mechanism for the localized boundary oscillations was pulsed reconnection at the magnetopause occurring along the X-line extending over the same 4-h region. The Pc5 band pressure fluctuations commonly seen in high-speed solar wind streams may modulate the reconnection rate as an indirect cause of the observed Pc5 pulsations. During the same interval, two flux transfer events were also observed in the magnetosphere near the oscillating magnetopause. Their ground signatures were identified in the CANOPUS data. The time delays of the FTE signatures from the Polar spacecraft to the ground stations enable us to estimate that the longitudinal extent of the reconnection X-line at the magnetopause was ~43° or ~5.2 RE. The coordinated in-situ and ground-based observations suggest that FTEs are produced by transient reconnection taking place along a single extended X-line at the magnetopause, as suggested in the models by Scholer (1988) and Southwood et al. (1988). The observations from this study suggest that the reconnection occurred in two different forms simultaneously in the same general region at the dayside magnetopause: 1) continuous reconnection with a pulsed reconnection rate, and 2) transient reconnection as flux transfer events. Key words. Magnetospheric physics (Magnetopause, cusp and boundary layers; Magnetosphere-ionosphere interactions; MHD waves and instabilities)

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)0.000
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 score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales GeophysicaeSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207