Magnetospheric Source Region of Auroral Finger‐like Structures Observed by the RBSP‐A Satellite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Auroral finger‐like structures appear equatorward of the auroral oval in the diffuse auroral region and contribute to the auroral fragmentation into patches. A previous report of the first conjugate observation of auroral finger‐like structures using a Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) Ground‐Based Observatories camera and the THEMIS‐E satellite at a radial distance of ∼8 RE showed antiphase oscillations of magnetic and plasma pressures in the dawnside plasma sheet. In the present study, we report another simultaneous observation of auroral finger‐like structures at Gillam, Canada, at ∼0900 UT (0230 magnetic local time) on 14 November 2014 with the Radiation Belt Storm Probes satellites at 5.8 RE in the inner magnetosphere. From this simultaneous observation event, we obtained the following observations. (1) Auroral finger‐like structures developed poleward in the equatorward moving auroral arc at the equatorward edge of the auroral oval. (2) Both the electron and ion OMNI fluxes measured by HOPE increased at ∼0900 UT as the satellite footprint entered the auroral region, indicating that the satellite was crossing the observed auroral finger‐like structures. (3) The absolute value of magnetic pressure was several times that of the plasma pressure, and no systematic phase relationship was identified between the magnetic and plasma pressures, unlike that in the THEMIS case. Based on these observations, we discuss two possible causes of the observed finger‐like structures, namely, pressure‐driven instability in the magnetosphere and gradient drift instability in the ionosphere. In this paper, the latter possibility is newly suggested to develop in the equatorward moving aurora associated with the westward electric field in the equatorward ionospheric density gradient.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".