MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125501733 · doi:10.5194/angeo-26-3477-2008

Statistical analysis of ground based magnetic field measurements with the field line resonance detector

2008· article· en· W2125501733 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ferdinand Plaschke, Karl‐Heinz Glaßmeier, D. Constantinescu, I. R. Mann, D. K. Milling, U. Motschmann, I. J. Rae

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales Geophysicae · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsDetectorPhysicsMagnetometerField (mathematics)TelescopeDispersion (optics)Computational physicsResonance (particle physics)Line (geometry)AcousticsMagnetic fieldOpticsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. In this paper we introduce the field line resonance detector (FLRD), a wave telescope technique which has been specially adapted to estimate the spectral energy density of field line resonance (FLR) phase structures in a superposed wave field. The field line resonance detector is able to detect and correctly characterize several superposed FLR structures of a wave field and therefore constitutes a new and powerful tool in ULF pulsation studies. In our work we derive the technique from the classical wave telescope beamformer and present a statistical analysis of one year of ground based magnetometer data from the Canadian magnetometer network CANOPUS, now known as CARISMA. The statistical analysis shows that the FLRD is capable of detecting and characterizing superposed or hidden FLR structures in most of the detected ULF pulsation events; the one year statistical database is therefore extraordinarily comprehensive. The results of this analysis confirm the results of previous FLR characterizations and furthermore allow a detailed generalized dispersion analysis of FLRs.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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