MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163175425 · doi:10.5194/angeo-27-1489-2009

Observation of an inner magnetosphere electric field associated with a BBF-like flow and PBIs

2009· article· en· W2163175425 on OpenAlexaff
T. Johansson, J. W. Bonnell, C. M. Cully, E. Donovan, J. Raeder, S. Eriksson, L. Andersson, R. E. Ergun, V. Angelopoulos, J. McFadden, Karl‐Heinz Glaßmeier, I. R. Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales Geophysicae · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsElectric fieldMagnetospherePhysicsSubstormGeophysicsMagnetic fieldPlasmaMagnetometer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Themis E observed a perpendicular (to the magnetic field) electric field associated with an Earthward plasma flow at XGSM=−9.6 RE on 11 January 2008. The electric field observation resembles Cluster observations closer to Earth in the auroral region. The fast plasma flow shared some characteristics with bursty bulk flows (BBFs) but did not meet the usual criteria in maximum velocity and duration to qualify as one. Themis C observed the same flow further downtail but Themis D, separated by only 1 RE in azimuthal direction from Themis E, did not. At the time of the electric field and ion flow event, the all-sky imager and ground-based magnetometer at Rankin Inlet observed Poleward Boundary Intensifications (PBIs) and a negative bay signature. None of the other Themis ground-based observatories recorded any significant auroral or magnetic field activity, indicating that this was a localized activity. The joint Themis in situ and ground-based observations suggest that the two observations are related. This indicates that auroral electric fields can extend to regions much farther out than previously seen in Cluster observations.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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