MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076515674 · doi:10.1029/2002gl016039

Model of the energization of outer‐zone electrons by whistler‐mode chorus during the October 9, 1990 geomagnetic storm

2002· article· en· W2076515674 on OpenAlexafffund
Danny Summers, Cong Ma, Nigel P. Meredith, R. B. Horne, D. Heynderickx, R. R. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsVan Allen radiation beltPhysicsGeomagnetic stormSubstormElectronWhistlerMagnetospherePitch angleGeophysicsChorusComputational physicsElectron precipitationVan Allen ProbesHissPlasmasphereEarth's magnetic fieldStormFlux (metallurgy)Atmospheric sciencesMagnetic fieldMeteorologyNuclear physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relativistic (>1 MeV) ‘killer electrons’ are frequently generated in the Earth's inner magnetosphere during the recovery phase of a typical magnetic storm. We test the hypothesis that the energization of electrons takes place by means of stochastic gyroresonant interaction between lower‐energy (several 100 keV) seed electrons and whistler‐mode chorus waves. We develop a model kinetic equation for the electron energy distribution, and utilize both electron and whistler‐mode wave data at L = 4 for a typical geomagnetic storm (on October 9, 1990) from instruments carried on the Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES). Our model solutions are found to match well with the CRRES profiles of the electron flux. We conclude that the mechanism of stochastic acceleration by whistler‐mode turbulence is a viable candidate for generating killer electrons, not only for the storm considered, but for similar storms with a several‐day recovery phase containing prolonged substorm activity.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations203
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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