MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2505161386 · doi:10.1002/2016rs006096

MUF variability in the Arctic region: A statistical comparison with the ITU‐R variability factors

2016· article· en· W2505161386 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueRadio Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsEquinoxThe arcticAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceLatitudeArcticRange (aeronautics)IonosphereMathematicsDecileClimatologyMeteorologyGeographyStatisticsPhysicsGeologyGeodesyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The maximum usable frequency (MUF(3000) F 2) decile factors obtained from observations at five stations located in the Arctic region: Resolute (74.75°N, 265.10°E), Dikson (73.50°N, 80.40°E), Norilsk (69.40°N, 88.10°E), Loparskaya (68.00°N, 33.00°E), and Sodankyla (67.40°N, 26.60°E) have been compared with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU‐R) estimates over three solar cycles (1961–2013). The summer MUF(3000) F 2 variability has been found to lie in the range of ±0.2, whereas limits for equinox and winter seasons are ±0.3 and ±0.5, respectively. This observation seems to directly translate into high differences between the measurement‐derived and ITU‐R decile values in winter and the smaller values for summer. These results illustrate that the high latitude ionosphere, and thus the MUF, is highly variable in winter, followed by the equinox, and experiences a low variability in summer.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · 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