Statistical properties of substorm auroral onset beads/rays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Auroral substorms are often associated with optical ray or bead structures during initial brightening (substorm auroral onset waves). Occurrence probabilities and properties of substorm onset waves have been characterized using 112 substorm events identified in Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) all‐sky imager data and compared to Rice Convection Model–Equilibrium (RCM‐E) and kinetic instability properties. All substorm onsets were found to be associated with optical waves, and thus, optical waves are a common feature of substorm onset. Eastward propagating wave events are more frequent than westward propagating wave events and tend to occur during lower‐latitude substorms (stronger solar wind driving). The wave propagation directions are organized by orientation of initial brightening arcs. We also identified notable differences in wave propagation speed, wavelength (wave number), period, and duration between westward and eastward propagating waves. In contrast, the wave growth rate does not depend on the propagation direction or substorm strength but is inversely proportional to the wave duration. This suggests that the waves evolve to poleward expansion at a certain intensity threshold and that the wave properties do not directly relate to substorm strengths. However, waves are still important for mediating the transition between the substorm growth phase and poleward expansion. The relation to arc orientation can be explained by magnetotail structures in the RCM‐E, indicating that substorm onset location relative to the pressure peak determines the wave propagation direction. The measured wave properties agree well with kinetic ballooning interchange instability, while cross‐field current instability and electromagnetic ion cyclotron instability give much larger propagation speed and smaller wave period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".