MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896317821 · doi:10.1029/2018gl079615

Statistical Analysis of SAR Arc Detachment From the Main Oval Based on 11‐Year, All‐Sky Imaging Observation at Athabasca, Canada

2018· article· en· W2896317821 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yuki Takagi, K. Shiokawa, Yuichi Otsuka, Martin Connors, Ian Schofield

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNatural Resources CanadaAthabasca University
KeywordsSubstormGeologySkyArc (geometry)LatitudeGeophysicsMagnetosphereGeodesyMeteorologyMagnetic fieldPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We report the first statistical analysis of stable auroral red (SAR) arc detachments from the main auroral oval, using 630‐nm all‐sky cooled‐Charge Coupled Device images obtained at Athabasca (magnetic latitude = 61.7°N), Canada. SAR arc detachments from the main oval can be an important way of monitoring the characteristics of ring current particle injection in the inner magnetosphere. We analyzed all‐sky images obtained for 11 years from 2006 to 2016 and found 163 SAR arc detachment events. The SAR arc detachments tend to occur in the premidnight sector, indicating the ring current ion drift to the dusk sector. The SAR arc detachments also tend to occur at the beginning of the substorm recovery phase, suggesting that the SAR arcs detach from the main oval as the main auroral oval returns to higher latitudes. The equatorward velocities of detached SAR arcs are from −100 m/s (poleward) to +200 m/s (equatorward), corresponding to magnetospheric electric fields from −1 to +2 mV/m.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207