MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079858403 · doi:10.1029/2001ja009154

April 2000 magnetic storm: Solar wind driver and magnetospheric response

2002· article· en· W2079858403 on OpenAlexfundno aff
K. E. J. Huttunen, H. Koskinen, T. I. Pulkkinen, A. Pulkkinen, Minna Palmroth, G. D. Reeves, H. J. Singer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Naval Research LaboratoryNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of AlbertaNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationAugsburg UniversityU.S. Department of CommerceAcademy of FinlandDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsSolar windMagnetopauseMagnetosphereCoronal mass ejectionGeomagnetic stormInterplanetary magnetic fieldGeophysicsElectrojetPhysicsMagnetic cloudDynamic pressureAtmospheric sciencesGeologyMagnetic fieldEarth's magnetic fieldMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 4 April 2000, a coronal mass ejection (CME) took place close to the western limb of the Sun. The shock front of the CME hit the Earth's magnetosphere on 6 April. A strong interplanetary southward BZ event in the sheath region caused a magnetic storm that was the second strongest in the year 2000 if quantified by the peak of the Dst index. We have analyzed this sequence of events using observations of several spacecraft in the solar wind and at geostationary orbit as well as recordings from more than 80 magnetometer stations at latitudes higher than 40°N. In the sheath region behind the shock, the interplanetary magnetic field had an intense and long‐sustained southward magnetic field orientation, and the solar wind magnetic pressure was very large, which compressed the dayside magnetopause inside geostationary orbit for a period of more than 6 hours. We conclude that it was the fluctuating but strongly southward field accompanied by the high pressure that allowed for the exceptionally strong driving of magnetospheric activity. During the main phase of the storm, the magnetosphere and ionosphere were in highly perturbed states, with several activations all around the auroral region. Detailed analysis shows that many of these activations were not substorms, in the sense that they were not associated with poleward and westward electrojet/auroral enhancement or geostationary particle injections, but were directly driven perturbations due to variations in the solar wind features. In fact, it was found that the development of the entire storm was quite independent of substorm activations and injections. Instead, the ring current development was driven by the strong convection enhancements. During the storm, the geomagnetically induced currents were strongly enhanced during several periods. While some activations were associated with substorm onsets or electrojet enhancements, others were caused by extremely localized and short‐lived electrojet activations.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations74
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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