Polarization of Pc1/EMIC waves and related proton auroras observed at subauroral latitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have investigated the polarization of Pc1 geomagnetic pulsations and related proton auroras at subauroral latitudes, using an induction magnetometer and an all‐sky camera at Athabasca, Canada (54.7°N, 246.7°E, magnetic latitude (mlat) 61.7°N). Isolated proton auroras often appear in association with Pc1 pulsations, because of proton scattering by electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) waves in the magnetosphere. We used the proton aurora as a proxy for the location and size of the Pc1 ionospheric source. For 27 Pc1 events with simultaneously observed proton auroras over 4 years from September 7, 2005 to September 6, 2009, we calculated the distances between the Pc1 ionospheric source and the observation site, normalized by the scale size of the source. We tried three different definitions of the scale size of Pc1 ionospheric source to calculate the normalized distances. We found that the rotation angleθ between the Pc1 polarization ellipse and the direction to the proton aurora changes from 90° to 0° as the normalized distance increases. For the definition of the scale sizes that gives most clear θ‐transition from 90° to 0°, the transition occurs at the normalized distance ∼2.0–4.0, while it was ∼1.0–2.0 by the model calculation of Fujita and Tamao (1988). The averaged major axes tend to point toward the proton aurora at larger distances. The difference of the transition location may imply that the Pc1 ionospheric sources are larger than the isolated proton auroras, or that the inhomogenuity of the ionospheric conductivity by the proton precipitation affects the transition distances.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".