MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084414366 · doi:10.1029/2004gl020869

Spatial relationship of equatorial plasma bubbles and field‐aligned irregularities observed with an all‐sky airglow imager and the Equatorial Atmosphere Radar

2004· article· en· W2084414366 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yuichi Otsuka, K. Shiokawa, T. Ogawa, T. Yokoyama, M. Yamamoto, S. Fukao

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaAlberta Agricultural Research InstituteNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAirglowAtmosphere (unit)Backscatter (email)F regionRadarSkyAtmospheric sciencesGeologyIonosphereRemote sensingGeophysicsPhysicsAstronomyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report, for the first time, simultaneous two‐dimensional observations of 630‐nm airglow depletions and radar backscatter from field‐aligned irregularities (FAI) associated with equatorial plasma bubbles. Spatial distributions of backscatter were obtained by performing east‐west scans with the 47‐MHz Equatorial Atmosphere Radar (EAR) in West Sumatra, Indonesia. A 630‐nm airglow depletion, caused by a plasma bubble, was simultaneously observed with an all‐sky airglow imager. Both the airglow depletion and backscatter region appeared as band‐like structure elongated in the meridional direction with a zonal width of about 100 km. To compare the spatial structures of backscatter with that of airglow depletion, the backscatter was projected onto a horizontal plane at 250‐km altitude. Backscatter was found to occur within the entire airglow‐depleted region.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.264
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

Citations54
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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