MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144998284 · doi:10.5194/angeo-32-1263-2014

Applying inversion techniques to derive source currents and geoelectric fields for geomagnetically induced current calculations

2014· article· en· W2144998284 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. S. de Villiers, Pierre J. Cilliers

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales Geophysicae · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSouth African National Space Agency
KeywordsGeomagnetically induced currentEarth's magnetic fieldGeophysicsIonosphereInversion (geology)GeologyIonospheric dynamo regionMagnetosphereGeomagnetic stormMagnetic fieldGeodesyComputational physicsPhysicsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This research focuses on the inversion of geomagnetic variation field measurement to obtain source currents in the ionosphere. During a geomagnetic disturbance, the ionospheric currents create magnetic field variations that induce geoelectric fields, which drive geomagnetically induced currents (GIC) in power systems. These GIC may disturb the operation of power systems and cause damage to grounded power transformers. The geoelectric fields at any location of interest can be determined from the source currents in the ionosphere through a solution of the forward problem. Line currents running east–west along given surface position are postulated to exist at a certain height above the Earth's surface. This physical arrangement results in the fields on the ground having the magnetic north and down components, and the electric east component. Ionospheric currents are modelled by inverting Fourier integrals (over the wavenumber) of elementary geomagnetic fields using the Levenberg–Marquardt technique. The output parameters of the inversion model are the current strength, height and surface position of the ionospheric current system. A ground conductivity structure with five layers from Quebec, Canada, based on the Layered-Earth model is used to obtain the complex skin depth at a given angular frequency. This paper presents preliminary and inversion results based on these structures and simulated geomagnetic fields. The results show some interesting features in the frequency domain. Model parameters obtained through inversion are within 2% of simulated values. This technique has applications for modelling the currents of electrojets at the equator and auroral regions, as well as currents in the magnetosphere.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales GeophysicaeSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207