Substorms during different storm phases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. After the deep solar minimum at the end of the solar cycle 23, a small magnetic storm occurred on 20–26 January 2010. The Dst (disturbance storm time) index reached the minimum of −38 nT on 20 January and the prolonged recovery that followed the main phase that lasted for about 6 days. In this study, we concentrate on three substorms that took place (1) just prior to the storm, (2) during the main phase of the storm, and (3) at the end of the recovery of the storm. We analyse the solar wind conditions from the solar wind monitoring spacecraft, the duration and intensity of the substorm events as well as the behaviour of the electrojet currents from the ground magnetometer measurements. We compare the precipitation characteristics of the three substorms. The results show that the F-region electron density enhancements and dominant green and red auroral emission of the substorm activity during the storm recovery resembles average isolated substorm precipitation. However, the energy dissipated, even at the very end of a prolonged storm recovery, is very large compared to the typical energy content of isolated substorms. In the case studied here, the dissipation of the excess energy is observed over a 3-h long period of several consecutive substorm intensifications. Our findings suggest that the substorm energy dissipation varies between the storm phases.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".