MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580642199 · doi:10.1002/2016sw001501

Geomagnetically induced currents: Science, engineering, and applications readiness

2017· article· en· W2580642199 on OpenAlexaff
A. Pulkkinen, E. Bernabeu, Alan Thomson, A. Viljanen, Risto Pirjola, D. H. Boteler, Jan F. Eichner, Pierre J. Cilliers, D. T. Welling, N. P. Savani, R. S. Weigel, Jeffrey J. Love, C. C. Balch, Chigomezyo M. Ngwira, G. Crowley, Adam Schultz, Ryuho Kataoka, B. J. Anderson, David Fugate, Jamesina Simpson, Mark H. MacAlester

Bibliographic record

VenueSpace Weather · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersUniversity of Cape TownSight Research UKNatural Environment Research CouncilU.S. Department of EnergyElectric Power Research InstituteNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationMacalester CollegeFederal Emergency Management AgencyU.S. Department of Homeland Security
KeywordsDeliverableGeomagnetically induced currentContext (archaeology)Work (physics)Space ScienceSystems engineeringGovernment (linguistics)EngineeringComputer scienceAerospace engineeringPhysicsMechanical engineeringEarth's magnetic fieldGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper is the primary deliverable of the very first NASA Living With a Star Institute Working Group, Geomagnetically Induced Currents (GIC) Working Group. The paper provides a broad overview of the current status and future challenges pertaining to the science, engineering, and applications of the GIC problem. Science is understood here as the basic space and Earth sciences research that allows improved understanding and physics‐based modeling of the physical processes behind GIC. Engineering, in turn, is understood here as the “impact” aspect of GIC. Applications are understood as the models, tools, and activities that can provide actionable information to entities such as power systems operators for mitigating the effects of GIC and government agencies for managing any potential consequences from GIC impact to critical infrastructure. Applications can be considered the ultimate goal of our GIC work. In assessing the status of the field, we quantify the readiness of various applications in the mitigation context. We use the Applications Readiness Level (ARL) concept to carry out the quantification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.239
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations255
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpace WeatherSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207