Understanding the response of the ionosphere-magnetosphere system to sudden solar wind density increases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[1] The different responses of the magnetosphere to sudden solar wind density enhancements are investigated. The majority of the responses are observed to have two phases: the first is due to an inductive E field propagating through the system, while the second is due to a vortex formation in the magnetosphere. However, during some events, the system displays a single-phase response. In order to understand the controlling parameters in the system response, statistical analyses of several solar wind external characteristics as well as the internal index Dst are conducted. Results of these analyses show that none of those characteristics seem to be associated with the way the geospace system responds to the abrupt solar wind density increase. Owing to the lack of statistics in the analysis, simulations investigating the effect of the solar wind Alfvén Mach number on the magnetospheric response have been conducted. The simulation results indicate that the two-phase response is always present but that a low solar wind Mach number causes an indistinct two-phase response, which is difficult to identify as having two phases. Compression signals following the sudden compression at the magnetopause are carried by a fast mode wave in the magnetosphere, which propagates toward the Earth and is reflected back toward the magnetopause by the plasmapause or ionosphere. The wave is subsequently reflected back again, leading to a secondary Earthward propagation. These multiple bounces of the fast mode wave result in two groups of the two-phase responses in the ionosphere, although the second group is extremely difficult to identify in ionospheric data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".