What effect do substorms have on the content of the radiation belts?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Substorms are fundamental and dynamic processes in the magnetosphere, converting captured solar wind magnetic energy into plasma energy. These substorms have been suggested to be a key driver of energetic electron enhancements in the outer radiation belts. Substorms inject a keV “seed” population into the inner magnetosphere which is subsequently energized through wave‐particle interactions up to relativistic energies; however, the extent to which substorms enhance the radiation belts, either directly or indirectly, has never before been quantified. In this study, we examine increases and decreases in the total radiation belt electron content (TRBEC) following substorms and geomagnetically quiet intervals. Our results show that the radiation belts are inherently lossy, shown by a negative median change in TRBEC at all intervals following substorms and quiet intervals. However, there are up to 3 times as many increases in TRBEC following substorm intervals. There is a lag of 1–3 days between the substorm or quiet intervals and their greatest effect on radiation belt content, shown in the difference between the occurrence of increases and losses in TRBEC following substorms and quiet intervals, the mean change in TRBEC following substorms or quiet intervals, and the cross correlation between SuperMAG AL (SML) and TRBEC. However, there is a statistically significant effect on the occurrence of increases and decreases in TRBEC up to a lag of 6 days. Increases in radiation belt content show a significant correlation with SML and SYM‐H , but decreases in the radiation belt show no apparent link with magnetospheric activity levels.
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 | 0.001 | 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".