MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045269516 · doi:10.1029/2009ja015148

THEMIS observations of electron cyclotron harmonic emissions, ULF waves, and pulsating auroras

2010· article· en· W2045269516 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Liang, V. M. Uritsky, E. Donovan, Binbin Ni, E. Spanswick, T. Trondsen, J. W. Bonnell, A. Roux, U. Auster, D. E. Larson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsElectronPlasma sheetCyclotronHarmonicAtomic physicsComputational physicsElectron precipitationIonosphereCurrent sheetPlasmaWave packetGeophysicsMagnetosphereNuclear physicsMagnetohydrodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present multiprobe, multi‐instrument observations of the electron cyclotron harmonic (ECH) emissions and ultralow‐frequency (ULF) waves from Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) and explore their potential linkage to the concurrent ground‐observed pulsating auroras (PsA) on 4 January 2009. The ECH emissions were observed as discrete packets modulated by the ULF flapping motion of the neutral sheet around the probes. Combining different data sets of the ECH observations, we infer that the ECH emission intensities were strongly fluctuating and contained multi‐time scale fine structures. The distribution of PsA patches featured longitudinal “wavelength” in concert with the in situ ULF wave characteristics inferred from a cross‐phase analysis. The overall activeness of the PsA correlated with the in situ‐measured energetic electron fluxes and ECH wave intensities. We suggest that ECH waves played the key role in the pitch angle diffusion of the plasma sheet electrons that led to the PsA, while the ULF waves structured the plasma sheet and imposed a macroscopic effect over the spatial distribution of the PsA.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations53
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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