Correlation of substorm injections, auroral modulations, and ground Pi2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this case study we report a substorm, 23 March 2007, which exhibited oscillations with a period of ∼135 s in three substorm phenomena all of which were one‐to‐one correlated. The in‐situ observations are from one THEMIS spacecraft (8.3 RE geocentric distance) and the geosynchronous LANL‐97A spacecraft. The focus here is on the intensification phase during which THEMIS was conjugate to the region of auroral brightening and its foot point was near the high‐latitude ground station Kiana. The following results will be demonstrated: (1) THEMIS and LANL‐97A (time‐delayed) recorded periodic ion injections (>100 keV). (2) Near‐conjugate high‐latitude ground magnetometer data show very large Pi2 (δH∼150 nT) with a 6‐s time delay compared to the THEMIS ion injections. (3) Low‐latitude ground magnetometer data also show Pi2 with the same waveform as the high‐latitude Pi2 but with longer time delays (20–31 s). (4) Auroral luminosity was periodically modulated during the intensification phase. (5) All three signatures (ion injections, ground Pi2, optical modulation) had the same periodicity of ∼135 s but with various time delays with respect to the THEMIS ion injections. These observations demonstrate that the three substorm phenomena had a common source which controlled the periodicity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".