MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132208324 · doi:10.1029/2007ja012354

Azimuthal structures of substorm electron injection and their signatures in riometer observations

2007· article· en· W2132208324 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Liang, W. W. Liu, E. Spanswick, E. Donovan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCanadian Space Agency
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsRiometerSubstormPhysicsElectronGeophysicsAzimuthElectron precipitationComputational physicsIonosphereMagnetosphereMagnetic fieldOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a theoretical model to investigate the effects of the curvature/gradient (c/g) drift and the finite azimuthal extent of the dipolarization region on the electron injection process associated with the substorm dipolarization. We study the azimuthal structure of high‐energy (>30 keV) electron precipitation flux and compare the result with riometer observations. We are able to reproduce three basic archetypes of riometer responses to substorms, namely, the spike, dispersionless injection, and dispersed injection events catalogued in previous observations. The electron injection near the duskward edge of the dipolarization region is most subject to azimuthal c/g drift loss, appearing in riometer observations as the “spike” feature. The “dispersionless injection” response is seen inside the dipolarization region but some distance away from its western border: or, alternatively, when the substorm has a rapid westward expansion, so that the gain and loss of electrons from the duskside and dawnside of a dipolarizing flux tube roughly balance. The “dispersed injection” feature is seen east of the dipolarization region. Our theory successfully explains the statistical differences in terms of magnetic local time location and peak intensity between spikes and injection events. Through the substorm event on 23 May 1998 we demonstrate that our theoretical predictions of riometer responses are very consistent with the observations. We highlight the potential of riometers in resolving the azimuthal extent and evolution of the dipolarization region, which provides a new ground‐based technique of remote sensing the substorm process.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207