MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054705424 · doi:10.1029/2000gl011930

Ørsted Initial Field Model

2000· article· en· W2054705424 on OpenAlexaff
Nils Olsen, R. Holme, Gauthier Hulot, Terence J. Sabaka, Torsten Neubert, Lars Tøffner‐Clausen, F. Primdahl, John Leif Jørgensen, Jean‐Michel Léger, D. R. Barraclough, Jeremy Bloxham, Joe Cain, Catherine Constable, V. P. Golovkov, Andrew Jackson, P.B. Kotzé, B. Langlais, Susan Macmillan, Mioara Mandéa, José M.G. Merayo, Lawrence R. Newitt, Michael E. Purucker, T. Risbo, M. Stampe, Alan Thomson, Coerte V. Voorhies

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpoch (astronomy)Earth's magnetic fieldPhysicsMagnetic fieldGeodesyGeophysicsScalar (mathematics)Degree (music)Spherical harmonicsComputational physicsGeologyAstrophysicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic measurements taken by the Ørsted satellite during geomagnetic quiet conditions around January 1, 2000 have been used to derive a spherical harmonic model of the Earth's magnetic field for epoch 2000.0. The maximum degree and order of the model is 19 for internal, and 2 for external, source fields; however, coefficients above degree 14 may not be robust. Such a detailed model exists for only one previous epoch, 1980. Achieved rms misfit is <2 nT for the scalar intensity and <3 nT for one of the vector components perpendicular to the magnetic field. For scientific purposes related to the Ørsted mission, this model supercedes IGRF 2000.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.022

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations140
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207