A statistical study of traveling convection vortices using the Magnetometer Array for Cusp and Cleft Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Magnetometer Array for Cusp and Cleft Studies (MACCS) is primarily a longitudinal magnetometer array located in the eastern Canadian arctic at cusp latitudes. We present a statistical study of traveling convection vortices (TCVs) as observed by MACCS from the first year of operations, August 1992 to July 1993. For this period, data are routinely available from three stations, extending more than 2 hours in magnetic local time (MLT) and located roughly on a line of constant geomagnetic latitude at 75°. With the selection criteria used, we find an average of 38 TCV events per month. We characterize the events as “isolated” and “nonisolated”. The isolated events have the typical, accepted signature of a TCV while the nonisolated ones are events that satisfy the selection criteria but occur among relatively strong magnetic activity. The diurnal distribution of these events shows a prenoon‐afternoon asymmetry, but the distribution has a single peak at 10 MLT and then falls off smoothly in the afternoon hours. It does not show the previously reported minimum of event occurrence around magnetic local noon except for isolated events occurring during higher Kp values. The most likely explanation for this discrepancy is the wide longitudinal extent of MACCS. The majority of the events have propagation velocities between 3 and 11 km/s, which can be a factor of 2 larger than the events reported in previous studies. The majority of the events move away from noon, as is expected, with a small fraction moving toward noon. Most (80%) of the studied events exhibit all the characteristics of a typical TCV, while the remaining 20% show some form of irregularity. We find four different types of irregularities. The isolated and nonisolated events have many similar morphological and propagation characteristics. However, quantitative comparison of the statistical distributions of the two types of TCVs indicates that they belong to different populations. We also find that nonisolated TCVs may occur for somewhat higher Kp values. We therefore suggest that the two classes of TCVs have different source mechanisms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".