MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736497160 · doi:10.1002/2016ja023758

Identifying the 630 nm auroral arc emission height: A comparison of the triangulation, FAC profile, and electron density methods

2017· article· en· W2736497160 on OpenAlexafffundabout
D. M. Gillies, D. J. Knudsen, E. Donovan, B. J. Jackel, R. G. Gillies, E. Spanswick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaEuropean Space AgencyCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of CalgaryNational Science Foundation
KeywordsObservatoryElectron densitySkyLine (geometry)Emission spectrumRadarAltitude (triangle)TriangulationPhysicsGeodesyRemote sensingElectron precipitationElectronOpticsAstrophysicsGeologyGeographyAstronomySpectral lineComputer sciencePlasmaMathematicsMagnetosphereGeometryTelecommunicationsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a comprehensive survey of 630 nm (red‐line) emission discrete auroral arcs using the newly deployed Redline Emission Geospace Observatory. In this study we discuss the need for observations of 630 nm aurora and issues with the large‐altitude range of the red‐line aurora. We compare field‐aligned currents (FACs) measured by the Swarm constellation of satellites with the location of 10 red‐line (630 nm) auroral arcs observed by all‐sky imagers (ASIs) and find that a characteristic emission height of 200 km applied to the ASI maps gives optimal agreement between the two observations. We also compare the new FAC method against the traditional triangulation method using pairs of all‐sky imagers (ASIs), and against electron density profiles obtained from the Resolute Bay Incoherent Scatter Radar‐Canadian radar, both of which are consistent with a characteristic emission height of 200 km.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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