MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162745961 · doi:10.1002/2013ja019196

The interconnection between cross‒polar cap convection and the luminosity of polar cap patches

2013· article· en· W2162745961 on OpenAlexaffabout
G. W. Perry, Keisuke Hosokawa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuminosityElectric fieldConvectionPhysicsPolarMagnetic fieldIonizationAstrophysicsPlasmaDrift velocityPolar capLatitudeMechanicsAstronomyNuclear physicsIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transport of patches of ionization across the polar cap is carried by the convection electric field, which imposes an E × B drift to the plasma. This drift has an upward component when the plasma is convected toward the north magnetic pole and a downward component as it moves away from the pole. The vertical motion modulates the rate at which recombination operates, which in turn is directly related to the luminosity of the patches. We show here that if a rapid increase in the electric field produces a downward velocity in excess of 10 m/s, the luminosity of the patches will at first increase before undergoing a marked decrease, in association with an increase in the recombination rates. Both the change in luminosity and the time scale for the temporary increase primarily depend on the vertical velocity, that is, on the strength of the convection electric field and on the magnetic latitude. Increases in luminosity by up to a factor of 2 or more are possible. The time scales for the variations are of the order of 10 to 20 min. We present an example of an actual luminosity modulation obtained over Resolute Bay, Canada, that agrees well with the proposed theory.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Space PhysicsSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207