MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158581587 · doi:10.1002/2015gl066592

On the dependence of storm time ULF wave power on magnetopause location: Impacts for ULF wave radial diffusion

2015· article· en· W2158581587 on OpenAlexafffund
K. R. Murphy, I. R. Mann, D. G. Sibeck

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of AlbertaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsMagnetopauseMagnetospherePhysicsVan Allen radiation beltGeophysicsVan Allen ProbesWave powerGeomagnetic stormSolar windRing currentPlasmasphereAmplitudeComputational physicsUltra low frequencyAlfvén waveMagnetohydrodynamicsPlasmaPower (physics)Astronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ultralow frequency (ULF) waves play a crucial role in energetic particle dynamics in the inner magnetosphere. We examine the role of the magnetopause location in controlling the amplitude and penetration of ULF waves within the inner magnetosphere during 63 coronal mass ejection (CME)‐driven and corotating interaction region (CIR)‐driven geomagnetic storms. Significantly, at the time when the magnetopause is most compressed, ULF wave power increases and penetrates to the deepest L shells. Most likely this is explained by proximity to the energy source and accumulation of energy within a smaller volume through solar wind‐magnetopause‐magnetosphere coupling, and changes in the storm time Alfvén continuum resulting from variations in the cold plasma density. The observed ULF wave power is consistently larger than Kp ‐dependent statistical estimates—especially in the heart of the outer radiation belt. This has important implications for radiation belt dynamics, including main phase loss and storm time ULF wave radial diffusion.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations42
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207