MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161990971 · doi:10.5194/angeo-19-733-2001

An interpretation of the <i>ƒo</i>F2 and <i>hm</i>F2 long-term trends in the framework of the geomagnetic control concept

2001· article· en· W2161990971 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales Geophysicae · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNational Institute of Polar ResearchMax-Planck-GesellschaftMassachusetts Institute of Technology
KeywordsEarth's magnetic fieldGeomagnetic stormIonosphereAtmospheric sciencesLatitudePhysicsGeophysicsMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Earlier revealed morphological features of the foF2 and hmF2 long-term trends are interpreted in the scope of the geomagnetic control concept based on the contemporary F2-layer storm mechanisms. The F2-layer parameter trends strongly depend on the long-term varying geomagnetic activity whose effects cannot be removed from the trends using conventional indices of geomagnetic activity. Therefore, any interpretation of the foF2 and hmF2 trends should consider the geomagnetic effects as an inalienable part of the trend analysis. Periods with negative and positive foF2 and hmF2 trends correspond to the periods of increasing or decreasing geomagnetic activity with the turning points around 1955, and the end of 1960s and 1980s, where foF2 and hmF2 trends change their signs. Such variations can be explained by neutral composition, as well as temperature and thermospheric wind changes related to geomagnetic activity variations. In particular, for the period of increasing geomagnetic activity (1965–1991) positive at lower latitudes, but negative at middle and high latitudes, foF2 trends may be explained by neutral composition and temperature changes, while soft electron precipitation determines nighttime trends at sub-auroral and auroral latitudes. A pronounced dependence of the foF2 trends on geomagnetic (invariant) latitude and the absence of any latitudinal dependence for the hmF2 trends are due to different dependencies of NmF2 and hmF2 on main aeronomic parameters. All of the revealed latitudinal and diurnal foF2 and hmF2 trend variations may be explained in the frame-work of contemporary F2-region storm mechanisms. The newly proposed geomagnetic storm concept used to explain F2-layer parameter long-term trends proceeds from a natural origin of the trends rather than an artificial one, related to the thermosphere cooling due to the greenhouse effect. Within this concept, instead of cooling, one should expect the thermosphere heating for the period of increasing geomagnetic activity (1965–1991).Key words. Ionosphere (ionosphere-atmosphere interactions; ionospheric disturbances)

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.247 · 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