MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108697558 · doi:10.5194/angeo-22-3211-2004

Response of the equatorial and low-latitude ionosphere during the space weather events of April 2002

2004· article· en· W2108697558 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. L. C. Lima, F. Becker‐Guedes, Y. Sahai, P. R. Fagundes, J. R. Abalde, G. Crowley, J. A. Bittencourt

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales Geophysicae · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsIonosondeIonosphereEarth's magnetic fieldLow latitudeLatitudeSpace weatherGeomagnetic latitudeMagnetic dipGeologyAtmospheric sciencesGeomagnetic stormF regionGeodesyMeteorologyPhysicsGeophysicsMagnetic fieldElectron densityPlasma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A digital ionosonde, of the type known as Canadian Advanced Digital Ionosonde (CADI), has been in routine operation at São José dos Campos (23.2° S, 45.9° W; dip latitude 17.6° S), Brazil, since August 2000. A new CADI was installed at Palmas (10.2° S, 48.2° W; dip latitude 5.5° S), Brazil, in April 2002. The two CADIs are part of a new network being established in a collaborative program between UNIVAP and CEULP/ULBRA, to study the equatorial and low-latitude ionospheric regions in Brazil. In this paper we present and discuss the effects of the space weather events during 17-20 April 2002, as evidenced by the ionospheric parameter changes from simultaneous observations at São José dos Campos and Palmas. A comparison of the observed ionospheric parameters (h'F, hpF2 and foF2) at the two stations, separated only by about 1460km, shows both similarities and differences associated with the geomagnetic disturbances. Also, a comparison of the observed F-region parameters with the ASPEN-TIMEGCM model results is presented. The model results show reasonable agreement during the quiet period of observations, but some discrepancies have been observed during the geomagnetic disturbances.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations33
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales GeophysicaeSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207