MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081235078 · doi:10.1186/bf03353035

A simple method for deriving the uniform field MT responses in auroral zones

2014· article· en· W2081235078 on OpenAlexaff
Alan G. Jones, J. Spratt

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Planets and Space · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetotelluricsEarth's magnetic fieldGeophysicsGeologyElectrical resistivity and conductivityGeodesyLatitudeMagnetic fieldComputational physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Source field effects in magnetotelluric data acquired at high geomagnetic latitudes can result in erroneous interpretations of Earth conductivity structure deep within the mantle. This paper describes a simple technique most appropriate for a region that is dominantly one-dimensional (1-D) and uses the vertical magnetic field variations for identifying intervals of likely low contamination by non-uniform sources. Times are chosen when the variations stay within prescribed limits defined on the basis of a histogram of the variations for the whole recording interval. An example is given showing application of the method for data from a site under the auroral oval at a time when solar activity was at its lowest for the last solar cycle. A model derived from the responses obtained by processing all available data implies a decrease in resistivity at about 350 km to about 100 Ω.m. In contrast, the model obtained from low activity interval responses shows a less rapid decrease in resistivity, without a change at around the 410 km phase boundary. The responses obtained from all data can be explained by the influence of a source with an average wavelength of 3,000 km.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.269
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations42
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Planets and SpaceSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207