Relation of substorm breakup arc to other growth‐phase auroral arcs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High‐resolution CANOPUS meridian‐scanning photometer and all‐sky imager observations of preonset and expansion‐phase auroral arcs are analyzed for expansion‐phase onsets that evolve into full substorms and into pseudobreakups. One or more arcs are seen across the sky throughout the growth phase prior to onset. The onsets we have examined indicate that auroral breakup at onset does not generally occur along one of these arcs but instead often occurs along a thin breakup arc that forms equatorward of all growth phase arcs a few minutes prior to onset. The intensity of this breakup arc increases monotonically for the few minutes prior to the time normally identified as substorm onset and then typically increases dramatically. These results imply that the processes responsible for auroral breakup initiate a few minutes prior to the time normally identified as substorm expansion‐phase onset. We also find that arcs poleward of the arc that breaks up appear to be unaffected by substorm onset until expansion‐phase auroral activity moves poleward to the location of such arcs. Arcs poleward of the poleward‐most extent of pseudobreakup auroral activity show no apparent effects of a pseudobreakup. These results imply that the process that initiates the onset of substorms does not require the occurrence of plasma sheet changes, significant enough to affect magnetosphere‐ionosphere electrodynamics, along field lines that cross the equator tailward of the substorm onset region.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".