Automated determination of auroral breakup during the substorm expansion phase using all‐sky imager data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper describes a novel method for quantitatively and routinely identifying auroral breakup following substorm onset using the Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms all‐sky imagers. Substorm onset is characterized by a brightening of the aurora that is followed by auroral poleward expansion and auroral breakup. This breakup can be identified by a sharp increase in the auroral intensity i(t) and the time derivative of auroral intensity i(t). Utilizing both i(t) and i'(t), we have developed an algorithm for identifying the time interval and spatial location of auroral breakup during the substorm expansion phase based solely on quantifiable characteristics of the optical auroral emissions. We compare the time interval determined by the algorithm to independently identified auroral onset times from three previously published studies. In each case the time interval determined by the algorithm is within error of the onset independently identified by the prior studies. We further show the utility of the algorithm by comparing the breakup intervals determined using the automated algorithm to an independent list of substorm onset times. We demonstrate that 50% of the breakup intervals characterized by the algorithm are within the uncertainty of the times identified in the list. The quantitative description and routine identification of an interval of auroral brightening during the substorm expansion phase provides a foundation for unbiased statistical analysis of the aurora and to probe the physics of the auroral substorm and identify the processes leading to auroral substorm onset.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".