MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070387495 · doi:10.1029/2006gl027282

Energy avalanches in the central plasma sheet

2006· article· en· W2070387495 on OpenAlexafffund
W. W. Liu, Paul Charbonneau, K. Thibault, Laura Morales

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCanadian Space Agency
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsPlasma sheetInstabilityPhysicsPlasmaNode (physics)MechanicsEnergy fluxEnergy (signal processing)Energy distributionAtomic physicsMagnetosphereQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The central plasma sheet (CPS) is simulated as a 1D cellular automaton. The system is driven deterministically and globally by a spatially non‐uniform energy loading (convection). Each node (a flux tube) evolves until one of two local instability criteria is exceeded. The unstable node releases a small amount of energy to the ionosphere and another small amount is distributed to its neighboring nodes. The partition between the two modes of energy distribution is the only random factor in the model. The energy redistribution relaxes the node deterministically to a stable state. The simulation suggests that a central plasma sheet driven in the above manner is in a self‐organized critical state, with energy avalanches obeying a scale‐free distribution. The avalanches, however, co‐exist with quasi‐periodic intermittencies manifested in ring‐current injection, which is correlated with strong CPS avalanches, and tailward energy ejection, which shows no apparent correlation in this aspect.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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