MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896497619 · doi:10.1029/2018gl079269

Eclipse‐Induced Changes to Topside Ion Composition and Field‐Aligned Ion Flows in the August 2017 Solar Eclipse: e‐POP Observations

2018· article· en· W2896497619 on OpenAlexafffund
A. W. Yau, Victoria Foss, Andrew Howarth, G. W. Perry, Chris Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space AgencyEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsIonEclipseSolar eclipsePhysicsPlasmaPolarOutflowPhotoionizationElectron densityAstrophysicsIonizationAtmospheric sciencesAstronomyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present in situ ion composition and velocity measurements during the August 2017 solar eclipse from the Enhanced Polar Outflow Probe (e‐POP), which crossed the path of totality at ~640‐km altitude within 10 min of totality passing. These measurements reveal two distinct H+ ion populations, an ~40% decrease in topside plasma density, a similar drop in upward but not downward H+ ion flux, and a downward O+ ion velocity of ~100 m/s. These features are directly linked to changes in the H+/O+ composition and in interhemispheric or field‐aligned light ion flow and to a reduction in the negative spacecraft potential. These observed features were absent on the preceding, noneclipse days and corroborate the reduction in F region plasma density and topside total electron content observed by the Global Positioning System receivers on board. They are attributed to the temporary reduction of photoionization in the eclipsed F region.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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