MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796025821 · doi:10.1002/2016ja023527

Alfvén waves in the auroral region, their Poynting flux, and reflection coefficient as estimated from Swarm observations

2017· article· en· W2796025821 on OpenAlexaff
Jaeheung Park, H. Lühr, D. J. Knudsen, J. K. Burchill, Young‐Sil Kwak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAir Force Research LaboratoryKorea Astronomy and Space Science Institute
KeywordsPoynting vectorPhysicsGeophysicsFlux (metallurgy)MagnetosphereNorthern HemisphereReflection (computer programming)AsymmetryEnergy fluxLatitudeCusp (singularity)Computational physicsAtmospheric sciencesIonospherePlasmaMagnetic fieldAstronomyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The European Space Agency's Swarm constellation can measure electric field, magnetic field, and plasma density on board multiple satellites at altitudes of about 500 km. Based on the data set at high latitudes, we estimate Poynting flux and ionospheric reflection coefficients of Alfvén waves with scale sizes of about 10–100 km. The reflection coefficients are generally higher surrounding the cusp and auroral regions than in the polar cap and higher in the summer than in the winter hemisphere. In the summer (winter) hemisphere the reflection coefficients generally peak on the dayside (nightside). Distributions of the reflection coefficients are not controlled by those of in situ plasma density. Poynting flux of the Alfvén waves maximizes surrounding the cusp and near‐midnight auroral region with magnitudes approaching 1 mW/m 2 , which are consistent with previous magnetospheric observations. The observed Poynting flux is downward on average for both hemispheres, and the magnitudes do not exhibit clear hemispheric asymmetry.

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 score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

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 communication0.0010.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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