MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321019932 · doi:10.2514/6.2016-1188

Extending the SPeAD-M86 Model: Incorporating the Effects of F<sub>10.7</sub> Variations on Atmospheric Density

2016· article· en· W2321019932 on OpenAlexaff
Siddharth Kedare, Steve Ulrich

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtmospheric modelMATLABAtmosphere (unit)MeteorologyFootprintAtmospheric instabilityStability (learning theory)Computer scienceSimulationRemote sensingPhysicsGeographyWind speed

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an extension to the SPeAD-M86 model by Kedare & Ulrich (2015) by incorporating variations in atmospheric density resulting from the 11-year solar cycle, as quantied using the F 10:7 index. It focuses on utilizing sinusoidal and exponential piece-wise functions to estimate temporal density changes in the atmosphere at geometric altitudes ranging from 0 { 1000 km. The model is validated against data from existing analytical and empirical atmospheric models. It is then implemented in a Matlab-Simulink orbit and attitude propagation environment to assess its stability, validity, and computational footprint at various instances in the solar cycle. The orbital elements from each simulation were compared against those obtained from baseline \truth simulations run using the Naval Research Lab (NRL) MSISE-00 model. Results indicate improvements in accuracy compared to the SPeAD-M86 model with minimal increase in computational run time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies ConferenceSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207