A direct link between chorus emissions and pulsating aurora on timescales from milliseconds to minutes: A case study at subauroral latitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A correlation was observed between chorus emissions and pulsating aurora (PA) from observations at Athabasca ( L ≈4.3) in Canada at 9:00–9:20 UT on 7 February 2013, using an electron multiplying charge‐coupled device camera and a VLF loop antenna with sampling rates of 110 Hz and 100 kHz, respectively. Pulsating aurora having a quasiperiodic variation in luminosity and a few hertz modulation was observed together with chorus emissions consisting of a group of successive rising‐tone elements. The repetition period and modulation frequency of the PA are in good agreement with those of the modulated chorus. After 9:11 UT, the temporal features of the aurora became aperiodic PA of indistinct modulation. Simultaneously, the rising‐tone chorus turned into chorus emissions consisting of numerous rising‐tone elements. The equatorial geomagnetic field inhomogeneity calculated using the Tsyganenko 2002 model shows a decreasing trend during the period. This result is consistent with nonlinear wave growth theory having a small geomagnetic field inhomogeneity, which contributes to a decrease in the threshold amplitude to trigger discrete chorus elements. These observations show a close connection between chorus emissions and PA on timescales from milliseconds for generation of discrete chorus elements on the microphysics of wave‐particle interaction to minutes for the variations of the geomagnetic field inhomogeneity related with the substorm activity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".