MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802890270 · doi:10.1029/2017ja025139

Van Allen Probes Observation of a Fundamental Poloidal Standing Alfvén Wave Event Related to Giant Pulsations

2018· article· en· W2802890270 on OpenAlexafffund
Kazue Takahashi, S. G. Claudepierre, R. Rankin, I. R. Mann, C. W. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Space AgencyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsAmplitudeEquatorSpacecraftProtonPhase (matter)Alfvén waveStanding waveMagnetic fieldResonance (particle physics)Computational physicsAtomic physicsOpticsMagnetohydrodynamicsNuclear physicsAstronomyLatitude

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Van Allen Probes‐A spacecraft observed an ∼9‐mHz ultralow‐frequency wave on 6 October 2012, at L ∼ 5.7, in the dawn sector, and very near the magnetic equator. The wave had a strong electric field that was initially stronger in the azimuthal component and later in the radial component, exhibited properties of a fundamental standing Alfvén wave, and was associated with giant pulsations observed on the ground near the magnetic field footprint of the spacecraft. The wave was accompanied by oscillations of the flux of energetic protons ( j H+ ). The amplitude of oscillations was large at equatorial pitch angles away from 90°, and the energy dependence of the phase and amplitude of the oscillations exhibited features consistent with drift resonance of ∼140‐keV protons with a westward‐propagating wave having an azimuthal wave number of ∼−40. The wave was detected when the spacecraft entered a region of an earthward gradient of the proton phase space density, in support of a theoretical prediction that such a gradient can drive fundamental poloidal waves.

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 score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations31
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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