MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061538505 · doi:10.1029/2003jd004493

The 2‐day wave during the boreal summer of 1994

2004· article· en· W2061538505 on OpenAlexaff
D. M. Riggin, R. S. Lieberman, R. A. Vincent, A. H. Manson, C. E. Meek, Takuji Nakamura, Toshitaka Tsuda, Yuri Portnyagin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStratopauseMicrowave Limb SounderMesosphereAtmospheric sciencesBorealNorthern HemisphereLatitudeSouthern HemisphereGeologyMiddle latitudesClimatologyGravity waveEnvironmental scienceStratosphereGeodesyGravitational wavePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2‐day wave during the boreal summer of 1994 was observed using stratospheric analyses from the British Met Office and at mesospheric heights using medium‐frequency (MF) radars and the microwave limb sounder (MLS) and high‐resolution Doppler imager (HRDI) satellite instruments. Most of the evidence from our study points to a high latitude source for the boreal 2‐day wave event we observed. We found little evidence for a connection between the 2‐day wave event in the mesosphere and activity at lower altitudes. Instead we contend that the 2‐day wave observed at upper mesospheric heights was excited in‐situ. This event was predominantly zonal wave number 2, was highly localized in time, and the disturbance propagated equatorially from high northern latitudes. At stratopause and lower mesospheric heights the largest 2‐day wave amplitudes were seen at high Southern Hemisphere latitudes (i.e., in the winter hemisphere). However, the austral winter 2‐day wave was trapped and did not penetrate to upper mesospheric heights.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 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

Citations28
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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