Statistical relationships between enhanced polar cap flows and PBIs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Poleward boundary intensifications (PBIs) are auroral intensifications along the poleward boundary of the auroral oval and occur during all levels of geomagnetic activity. However, little is known about the triggering of PBIs. Recent case studies have indicated the existence of longitudinally localized flow channels in the polar cap near, and directed toward, the nightside open‐closed field line boundary just before PBIs. Motivated by these studies, we analyze 115 events of coordinated observations by the Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms all‐sky imager and Super Dual Auroral Radar Network HF radar at Rankin Inlet to determine if this polar cap flow‐PBI relationship is commonly observed. We start with isolated and intense PBIs and examine the probability of them being associated with equatorward directed polar cap flows. Our results show the association to be frequent (90%), with one‐to‐one correlations occurring in ~50% of events. Considering the limitations of the radar observations, this result indicates that PBIs are commonly correlated with polar cap flow channels directed toward, and then traversing, the open‐closed field line boundary. The flows statistically occur ~1–2 min before the PBI initiations, and the duration and width of the flows are comparable to those of the PBIs. We also perform a reverse study by starting with isolated polar cap flows and obtain similar results. The remarkably high occurrence of association between enhanced polar cap flows and PBIs indicates that enhanced mesoscale flows within the open field line region that traverse the open‐closed field line boundary are an important driver of PBI formation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".