Bibliographic record
Abstract
The composition of the aurora borealis became a subject of scientific interest with the introduction of spectroscopy, but for a long time the aurora refused to reveal its secrets. After fifty years of research, the origin of the dominant green line of wavelength 5577 Å was still a mystery. Only in 1912 did progress finally begin to occur in the understanding of the aurora, a field of research which appealed in particular to Norwegian scientists. Prominent among them was Lars Vegard (1880–1963), who in 1923 suggested a new picture of the upper atmosphere and an explanation of the green line in terms of excitations of frozen nitrogen dust particles. Although apparently confirmed by cryogenic experiments, Vegard's theory was challenged by the Canadian physicist John McLellan (1867–1935) who in 1925, together with his postdoctoral student Gordon Shrum (1896–1985), reproduced the line in experiments with helium-oxygen mixtures. This is the story of how the enigma of the green auroral line was finally resolved and explained by the quantum theory of atoms, namely as a transition between two metastable states of oxygen. It is also the story of two of the period's leading specialists in auroral spectroscopy, their rivalry, and different approaches to the study of the northern light.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".