MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2571501174 · doi:10.1002/2016ja023459

Particle energization by a substorm dipolarization

2017· article· en· W2571501174 on OpenAlexaff
К. Кабин, G. A. Kalugin, E. Donovan, E. Spanswick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstormPhysicsElectronGuiding centerDipoleMagnetosphereIonAtomic physicsComputational physicsMagnetic fieldQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Magnetotail dipolarizations, often associated with substorms, produce significant energetic particle enhancements in the nighttime magnetosphere. In this paper, we apply our recently developed magnetotail dipolarization model to the problem of energizing electrons and ions. Our model is two‐dimensional in the meridional plane and is characterized by the ability to precisely control the location of the transition from the dipole‐like to tail‐like magnetic fields. Both magnetic and electric fields are calculated, self‐consistently, as the transition zone retreats farther into the tail and the area around the Earth occupied by dipole‐like lines increases in size. These fields are used to calculate the motion of electrons and ions and changes in their energies. We consider the energizing effects of the fields restricted to ±15° and ±30° sectors around the midnight meridian, as well the axisymmetric case. Energies of some electrons increase by a factor of 25, which is more than enough to produce observable ionospheric signatures. Electrons are treated using the Guiding Center approximation, while protons and heavier particles generally require description based on the Lorentz equations.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Space PhysicsSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207