Seasonal dependence of northern high‐latitude upper thermospheric winds: A quiet time climatological study based on ground‐based and space‐based measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper investigates the large‐scale seasonal dependence of geomagnetically quiet time, northern high‐latitude F region thermospheric winds by combining extensive observations from eight ground‐based (optical remote sensing) and three space‐based (optical remote sensing and in situ) instruments. To provide a comprehensive picture of the wind morphology, data are assimilated into a seasonal empirical vector wind model as a function of season, latitude, and local time in magnetic coordinates. The model accurately represents the behavior of the constituent data sets. There is good general agreement among the various data sets, but there are some major offsets between GOCE and the other data sets, especially on the duskside. The assimilated wind patterns exhibit a strong and large duskside anticyclonic circulation cell, sharp latitudinal gradients in the duskside auroral zone, strong antisunward winds in the polar cap, and a weaker tendency toward a dawnside cyclonic circulation cell. The high‐latitude wind system shows a progressive intensification of wind patterns from winter to equinox to summer. The latitudinal extent of the duskside circulation cell does not depend strongly on season. Zonal winds show a mainly diurnal variation (two extrema) around polar and middle latitudes and semidiurnal variation (four extrema) at auroral latitudes; meridional winds are primarily diurnal at all high latitudes. The strength of zonal winds channeling through the auroral zone on the duskside is strongest in the summer season. The vorticity of the wind pattern increases from winter to summer, whereas divergence is maximum in equinox. In all three seasons, divergence is weaker than vorticity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".