Bibliographic record
Abstract
Auroral studies have reached a turning point. It now seems clear that the ‘standard’ theory which claims that the electrons responsible for bright, curtain‐like auroral arcs gain their energy from static electric fields, is indefensible, while a theory which attributes the acceleration to plasma waves is poised as a possible successor. It was approximately 100 years ago that the Norwegian mathematician and physicist Kristian Birkeland inferred that the aurora was a scintillation of the atmosphere caused by an influx of charged particles. Just over half a century later, McIlwain [1960] discovered, from pioneering rocket flights made from near the town of Churchill in Manitoba, Canada, that Birkeland was right, and that the particles were primarily electrons. Moreover, Mcllwain was able to deduce that the electrons producing a curtain‐like auroral arc exhibited a local maximum, or peak, in their energy spectrum. This conclusion was confirmed with progressively increasing resolution and sensitivity by Albert [1967] and others in the 1960s.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".