MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057292393 · doi:10.1029/2002ja009314

Observations of the phases of the substorm

2003· article· en· W2057292393 on OpenAlexafffundabout
I. Voronkov, E. Donovan, J. C. Samson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Space AgencyGoddard Space Flight CenterUniversitetet i Tromsø
KeywordsSubstormBreakupGeostationary orbitPhysicsGeophysicsMagnetosphereGeologyAstrophysicsMeteorologySatellitePlasmaMechanicsAstronomyNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the database of large‐scale vortices during pseudo‐breakup and breakup registered by the Gillam All‐Sky Imager, we selected one event (19 February 1996) for a detailed consideration. This event is a sequence of pseudo‐breakup and local substorm, and breakup followed by the large substorm, which is isolated from the previous pseudo‐breakup by the second growth phase. Commencement of these elements of auroral activity was clearly seen above the Churchill line of the Canadian Auroral Network for the OPEN Program Unified Study (CANOPUS; pseudo‐breakup was completely covered by the field of view of the Gillam All‐Sky Imager). Geotail was located at ∼19 R E in the equatorial plane of midnight sector, which, along with supporting observations from two geostationary satellites (GOES 8 and 9), allowed for a comparison of ground‐based, geostationary orbit and midtail signatures. The pseudo‐breakup consisted of two distinct stages: a near‐exponential arc intensity growth and a poleward vortex expansion that started simultaneously with dipolarization in the inner magnetosphere. The latter corresponded to explosive onset of short‐period (tens of millihertz) pulsations observed at geostationary orbit and on the ground in the vicinity of the arc. No significant disturbances poleward of the vortex were observed. Pseudo‐breakup was followed by the second growth phase, which involved a significant thinning of the plasma sheet. Breakup was of a similar two‐stage character as the pseudo‐breakup. Full onset of the expansive phase that followed breakup was seen simultaneously by all instruments including Geotail, which detected strong perturbations in the midtail. The expansive phase onset launched the second postbreakup package of Pi2 pulsations that were of larger amplitude. Finally, during the substorm recovery phase, the poleward boundary intensifications (PBIs) were observed as long‐period, on the order of 10 min, pulses of electron precipitation. PBI commencement coincided with bursty flows and pulses of plasma energization in the midtail. Observed features support recent ideas claiming that we are dealing with processes (breakup, full onset of the expansive phase, and PBIs) of a distinct physical nature that require different commencement thresholds, namely, the inner plasma sheet instability (pseudo‐breakup and breakup), midtail reconnection (expansive phase onset), and further magnetotail dynamics during the recovery phase (PBIs).

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.308
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

Citations49
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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