MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114773910 · doi:10.5194/angeo-23-371-2005

On the relationship between the velocity of E-region HF echoes and <i>E</i>x<i>B</i> plasma drift

2005· article· en· W2114773910 on OpenAlexafffund
A. V. Koustov, D. W. Danskin, R. A. Makarevitch, J. D. Gorin

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales Geophysicae · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsElectrojetEquatorial electrojetPhysicsDrift velocityPhase velocityIonosphereSporadic E propagationRadarPlasmaAtomic physicsComputational physicsGeophysicsOpticsMagnetic fieldNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. In this study, velocities of E-region HF echoes observed by the Stokkseyri HF radar are compared with ExB plasma drifts in the F-region measured by the DMSP satellites. Events were selected for which the DMSP track projected to the height of 110km was almost perpendicular to the central beams of the radar, resulting in a direct comparison of the cross-track component of the ExB drift and the line-of-sight HF velocity. We found that the typical ratio of HF velocity to the DMSP drift is ~0.35 in a range of DMSP drifts of 0-1700m/s. It is suggested that E-region HF velocities, observed both along the electrojet and at large flow angles, are significantly affected by scatter from the bottom of the electrojet layer where the irregularity phase velocity is expected to be strongly depressed with respect to the ExB flow.

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)0.002
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations36
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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