MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756569191 · doi:10.1002/2017ja024484

Energetic Proton Spectra Measured by the Van Allen Probes

2017· article· en· W2756569191 on OpenAlexafffund
Danny Summers, Run Shi, M. J. Engebretson, Kjellmar Oksavik, J. W. Manweiler, D. G. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsProtonSpectral lineCyclotronPhysicsVan Allen ProbesRing currentLimitingScatteringIonAtomic physicsNuclear physicsVan Allen radiation beltMagnetosphereElectronOpticsAstronomyPlasma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We test the hypothesis that pitch angle scattering by electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) waves can limit ring current proton fluxes. For two chosen magnetic storms, during 17–20 March 2013 and 17–20 March 2015, we measure proton energy spectra in the region 3 ≤ L ≤ 6 using the RBSPICE‐B instrument on the Van Allen Probes. The most intense proton spectra are observed to occur during the recovery periods of the respective storms. Using proton precipitation data from the POES (NOAA and MetOp) spacecraft, we deduce that EMIC wave action was prevalent at the times and L ‐shell locations of the most intense proton spectra. We calculate limiting ring current proton energy spectra from recently developed theory. Comparisons between the observed proton energy spectra and the theoretical limiting spectra show reasonable agreement. We conclude that the measurements of the most intense proton spectra are consistent with self‐limiting by EMIC wave scattering.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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