MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131976712 · doi:10.1002/2014gl062610

Swarm in situ observations of <b><i>F</i></b> region polar cap patches created by cusp precipitation

2015· article· en· W2131976712 on OpenAlexafffund
Lindsay Goodwin, B. Iserhienrhien, David M. Miles, S. Patra, Christer van der Meeren, S. Buchert, J. K. Burchill, L. B. N. Clausen, D. J. Knudsen, K. A. McWilliams, J. Moen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Space AgencyNorges ForskningsrådEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsIn situPolarPolar capCusp (singularity)PrecipitationSwarm behaviourGeologyPhysicsAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyGeometryAstronomyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract High‐resolution in situ measurements from the three Swarm spacecraft, in a string‐of‐pearls configuration, provide new insights about the combined role of flow channel events and particle impact ionization in creating F region electron density structures in the northern Scandinavian dayside cusp. We present a case of polar cap patch formation where a reconnection‐driven low‐density relative westward flow channel is eroding the dayside solar‐ionized plasma but where particle impact ionization in the cusp dominates the initial plasma structuring. In the cusp, density features are observed which are twice as dense as the solar‐ionized background. These features then follow the polar cap convection and become less structured and lower in amplitude. These are the first in situ observations tracking polar cap patch evolution from creation by plasma transport and enhancement by cusp precipitation, through entrainment in the polar cap flow and relaxation into smooth patches as they approach the nightside auroral oval.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations78
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207