MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160756332 · doi:10.5194/angeo-22-3251-2004

Brightness variations of the northern 630nm intertropical arc and the midnight pressure bulge over Eritrea

2004· article· en· W2160756332 on OpenAlexaff
R. H. Wiens, S. Habtemichael, F. Andemariam, K. Welday, J. Criswick, Stephen Brown, S. Sargoytchev

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales Geophysicae · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolsticeMidnightEquinoxLatitudeBulgeGeologySkyBrightnessClimatologyEquatorLocal timeAtmospheric sciencesNoonGeographyAstronomyMeteorologyPhysicsGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The nightglow brightness at 630nm from the thermospheric O(1D) layer was monitored nightly at Asmara, Eritrea (15.4° N, 39.9° E, 7° N dip) with an all-sky imager. Averages of north-south strips of the images enabled contour plots of brightness on a latitude vs. local time grid. The contours show the movement of the intertropical arc southward before midnight, staying just north of Asmara after midnight, and gradually brightening to a maximum at 02:00h local civil time, 02:00 LT, after which it disappears before dawn. It is argued that all features of the plots can be explained by known mechanisms capable of driving ions along magnetic field lines, including the fountain effect, summer to winter transequatorial winds, and the midnight pressure bulge. The 02:00 LT brightness maximum is the most striking and the most persistent feature in the data. The persistence of the location of the 02:00 LT brightening is attributed to a pressure bulge centered on the geographic equator at midnight and extending to higher latitudes with increasing local time in both the winter and the summer hemispheres. The bulge is shown to be stronger near solstice than near equinox, confirming earlier work.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales GeophysicaeSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207