MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2943626388 · doi:10.1029/2018jd029728

Structure, Variability, and Mean‐Flow Interactions of the January 2015 Quasi‐2‐Day Wave at Middle and High Southern Latitudes

2019· article· en· W2943626388 on OpenAlexaff
David C. Fritts, H. Iimura, Diego Janches, R. S. Lieberman, D. M. Riggin, N. J. Mitchell, R. A. Vincent, Iain M. Reid, D. J. Murphy, Masaki Tsutsumi, A. J. Kavanagh, P. P. Batista, W. K. Hocking

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilUniversity of AdelaideSight Research UKAssociation for Asian StudiesNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsThermosphereAmplitudeMiddle latitudesGeopotential heightGeologyAtmospheric sciencesLatitudeMesosphereWavenumberZonal and meridionalZonal flow (plasma)Mean flowClimatologyGeodesyMeteorologyGeophysicsPhysicsIonosphereStratospherePrecipitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The structure, variability, and mean‐flow interactions of the quasi‐2‐day wave (Q2DW) in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere during January 2015 were studied employing meteor and medium‐frequency radar winds at eight sites from 23°S to 76°S and Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) temperature and geopotential height measurements from 30°S to 80°S. The event had a duration of ~20–25 days, dominant periods of ~44–52 hr, temperature amplitudes as large as ~16 K, and zonal and meridional wind amplitudes as high as ~40 and 80 m/s, respectively, at middle and lower latitudes. MLS measurements enabled definition of balance winds that agreed well with radar wind amplitudes and phases at middle latitudes where amplitudes were large and quantification of the various Q2DW modes contributing to the full wave field. The Q2DW event was composed primarily of the westward zonal wavenumber 3 (W3) mode but also had measurable amplitudes in other westward modes W1, W2, and W4; eastward modes E1 and E2; and stationary mode S0. Of the secondary modes, W1, W2, and E2 had the larger amplitudes. Inferred MLS balance winds enabled estimates of the Eliassen‐Palm fluxes for each mode, and cumulative zonal accelerations that were found to be in reasonable agreement with radar estimates from ~35°S to 70°S at the lower altitudes at which radar winds were available.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics→French-language works237,207→