Nature's Grand Experiment: Linkage between magnetospheric convection and the radiation belts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The solar minimum of 2007–2010 was unusually deep and long lived. In the later stages of this period the electron fluxes in the radiation belts dropped to extremely low levels. The flux of relativistic electrons (>1 MeV) was significantly diminished and at times was below instrument thresholds both for spacecraft located in geostationary orbits and also those in low‐Earth orbit. This period has been described as a natural “Grand Experiment” allowing us to test our understanding of basic radiation belt physics and in particular the acceleration mechanisms which lead to enhancements in outer belt relativistic electron fluxes. Here we test the hypothesis that processes which initiate repetitive substorm onsets drive magnetospheric convection, which in turn triggers enhancement in whistler mode chorus that accelerates radiation belt electrons to relativistic energies. Conversely, individual substorms would not be associated with radiation belt acceleration. Contrasting observations from multiple satellites of energetic and relativistic electrons with substorm event lists, as well as chorus measurements, show that the data are consistent with the hypothesis. We show that repetitive substorms are associated with enhancements in the flux of energetic and relativistic electrons and enhanced whistler mode wave intensities. The enhancement in chorus wave power starts slightly before the repetitive substorm epoch onset. During the 2009/2010 period the only relativistic electron flux enhancements that occurred were preceded by repeated substorm onsets, consistent with enhanced magnetospheric convection as a trigger.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".