Modulation of the dayside diffuse auroral intensity by the solar wind dynamic pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Compared to the recently improved understanding of the nightside diffuse aurora, the mechanism(s) responsible for the dayside diffuse auroral precipitation remains limitedly understood. We investigate the dayside diffuse aurora observed by the all‐sky imagers of Chinese Arctic Yellow River Station in the time interval of 02:00–10:00 UT (05:00–13:00 magnetic local time) on 2 January 2006. In this interval, the intensity of dayside diffuse aurora is highly correlated with the solar wind dynamic pressure with a maximum coefficient of 0.89. Moreover, there are similar spectra characteristics in the Pc5 range between the intensity of dayside diffuse aurora and solar wind dynamic pressure (proton density) during a portion of the time interval, in which the interplanetary magnetic field B z is northward. The observation indicates that changes in solar wind dynamic pressure can efficiently modulate the magnitude of the dayside diffuse aurora, except when the interplanetary magnetic field is southward. The enhancement of the solar wind dynamic pressure can provide favorable circumstances for dayside chorus wave generation, so we consider that the dayside chorus could be a candidate for the production of the dayside diffuse aurora. Furthermore, since the compressional Pc4‐Pc5 pulsations can also modulate the intensity of whistler mode chorus waves, the solar wind dynamic pressure modulates the dayside diffuse aurora through affecting dayside chorus wave activity and the associated scattering 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".