MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052666772 · doi:10.1029/2009gl041476

Equatorward moving auroral signatures of a flow burst observed prior to auroral onset

2009· article· en· W2052666772 on OpenAlexafffundabout
L. Kepko, E. Spanswick, V. Angelopoulos, E. Donovan, J. McFadden, K. Glassmeier, J. Raeder, H. J. Singer

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of AlbertaU.S. Geological SurveyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSubstormArc (geometry)GeophysicsSkyPhysicsGeologyAstrophysicsWedge (geometry)MagnetosphereMagnetic fieldOpticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present observations of a substorm that occurred on February 25, 2008. Auroral onset was observed with a multi‐spectral ( λ = 427.8, 557.7 and 630.0 nm) and white light all sky imager at Gillam, Canada. An equatorward moving diffuse auroral patch was observed in the λ = 630.0 nm images at least six minutes prior to auroral onset. This form emerged from the background noise poleward of the eventual onset arc and intensified as it moved equatorward. Auroral expansion onset occurred when this form reached the onset arc location. Flows were detected by THEMIS probes P3 (TH‐D) and P4 (TH‐E) near X ∼ −11 R E nearly 90 seconds prior to auroral expansion. A small discrete arc was observed in the λ = 557.7 nm images at the westward and equatorward edge of the diffuse 630.0 nm patch nearly 2 minutes prior to expansion onset, suggesting a field‐aligned current of a substorm current wedge geometry. We conclude that the equatorward moving λ = 630.0 nm diffuse auroral patch was generated by processes associated with an earthward moving flow burst that formed prior to auroral substorm onset.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations74
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207