MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2731862157 · doi:10.1002/2017sw001614

Modeling observations of solar coronal mass ejections with heliospheric imagers verified with the Heliophysics System Observatory

2017· article· en· W2731862157 on OpenAlexafffund
Christian Möstl, Alexey Isavnin, Peter Boakes, Emilia Kilpua, J. A. Davies, R. A. Harrison, David Barnes, Vratislav Krupař, J. P. Eastwood, Simon Good, R. J. Forsyth, V. Bothmer, Tanja Amerstorfer, R. M. Winslow, B. J. Anderson, L. Philpott, L. Rodríguez, A. P. Rouillard, P. T. Gallagher, Teresa Nieves‐Chinchilla, Tielong Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueSpace Weather · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSeventh Framework ProgrammeCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationAustrian Science FundGrantová Agentura České RepublikyScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCoronal mass ejectionPhysicsObservatorySpacecraftSpace weatherAstronomyAstrophysicsRemote sensingMeteorologySolar windGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an advance toward accurately predicting the arrivals of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) at the terrestrial planets, including Earth. For the first time, we are able to assess a CME prediction model using data over two thirds of a solar cycle of observations with the Heliophysics System Observatory. We validate modeling results of 1337 CMEs observed with the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO) heliospheric imagers (HI) (science data) from 8 years of observations by five in situ observing spacecraft. We use the self-similar expansion model for CME fronts assuming 60° longitudinal width, constant speed, and constant propagation direction. With these assumptions we find that 23%-35% of all CMEs that were predicted to hit a certain spacecraft lead to clear in situ signatures, so that for one correct prediction, two to three false alarms would have been issued. In addition, we find that the prediction accuracy does not degrade with the HI longitudinal separation from Earth. Predicted arrival times are on average within 2.6 ± 16.6 h difference of the in situ arrival time, similar to analytical and numerical modeling, and a true skill statistic of 0.21. We also discuss various factors that may improve the accuracy of space weather forecasting using wide-angle heliospheric imager observations. These results form a first-order approximated baseline of the prediction accuracy that is possible with HI and other methods used for data by an operational space weather mission at the Sun-Earth L5 point.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations101
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpace WeatherSame topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207