The response of the equatorial ionosphere to fast stream solar coronal holes during 2008 deep solar minimum over Indian region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we report ionospheric response to fast stream solar coronal holes during 2008 deep solar minimum year using ground‐based multi‐instruments over Indian region. To examine this, we analyzed foF2 (MHz) and hpF2(km) from Canadian Advanced Digital Ionosonde and total electron content (TEC) from GPS receiver over Tirunelveli (8.73°N, 77.70°E; dip 0.5°N) along with equatorial electrojet (EEJ) strength. Our analysis shows good correlation between solar wind and foF2/TEC, while hpF2 is poorly correlated. However, moderate correlation exists between solar wind and EEJ strength. When we performed periodogram analysis, we observed 9 and 13 day periods as dominant periods in foF2 and TEC. Interestingly, the occurrence pattern of plasma irregularities also resembles these periodic oscillations. Since it is believed that lower atmospheric waves are dominant forces for ionospheric variabilities during deep solar minimum, we examined the mesosphere/lower thermosphere region temperature using Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry and winds using medium frequency radar along with outgoing longwave radiation in the troposphere altitudes to rule out the sources for these periodic oscillations in the lower atmosphere. Using cross‐wavelet and cross‐coherence spectra of both solar wind and ionospheric/atmospheric parameters, we suggest that ionospheric periodicities are similar to that of solar wind. Based on these results, we suggest that while the periodic oscillations are associated with the disturbance dynamo winds/electric fields that are propagated to equatorial latitudes, the differences in their temporal/seasonal variations are attributed to the variations in the composition/recombination changes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".