MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951427533 · doi:10.1051/swsc/2019017

Time-of-day/time-of-year response functions of planetary geomagnetic indices

2019· article· en· W2951427533 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Aude Chambodut, I. Finch, Luke Barnard, M. J. Owens, Carl Haines

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Space Weather and Space Climate · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of SouthamptonAlberta Agricultural Research InstituteUniversità degli Studi dell'AquilaUniversity of ReadingCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueU.S. Geological SurveyScience and Technology Facilities CouncilBritish Geological SurveyNatural Environment Research CouncilCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesSight Research UKFlorida Institute of Technology
KeywordsEarth's magnetic fieldUniversal TimeSolar zenith angleZenithGeomagnetic latitudeForcing (mathematics)ObservatoryIonosphereLatitudeIndex (typography)Local timeMode (computer interface)Sensitivity (control systems)Function (biology)MeteorologySolar cycleEnvironmental scienceMathematicsAtmospheric sciencesPhysicsStatisticsGeodesySolar windGeologyAstrophysicsComputer scienceGeophysicsMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: To elucidate differences between commonly-used mid-latitude geomagnetic indices and study quantitatively the differences in their responses to solar forcing as a function of Universal Time ( UT ), time-of-year ( F ), and solar-terrestrial activity level. To identify the strengths, weaknesses and applicability of each index and investigate ways to correct for any weaknesses without damaging their strengths. Methods: We model how the location of a geomagnetic observatory influences its sensitivity to solar forcing. This modelling for a single station can then be applied to indices that employ analytic algorithms to combine data from different stations and thereby we derive the patterns of response of the indices as a function of UT , F and activity level. The model allows for effects of solar zenith angle on ionospheric conductivity and of the station’s proximity to the midnight-sector auroral oval: it employs coefficients that are derived iteratively by comparing data from the current aa index stations (Hartland and Canberra) to simultaneous values of the am index, constructed from chains of stations in both hemispheres. This is done separately for eight overlapping bands of activity level, as quantified by the am index. Initial estimates were obtained by assuming the am response is independent of both F and UT and the coefficients so derived were then used to compute a corrected F - UT response pattern for am . This cycle was repeated until it resulted in changes in predicted values that were below the adopted uncertainty level (0.001%). The ideal response pattern of an index would be uniform and linear (i.e., independent of both UT and F and the same at all activity levels). We quantify the response uniformity using the percentage variation at any activity level, V = 100 ( σ S /〈 S 〉), where S is the index’s sensitivity at that activity level and σ S is the standard deviation of S : both S and σ S were computed using the eight UT ranges of the 3-hourly indices and 20 equal-width ranges of F . As an overall metric of index performance, we take an occurrence-weighted mean of V , V av , over the eight activity-level bins. This metric would ideally be zero and a large value shows that the index compilation is introducing large spurious UT and/or F variations into the data. We also study index performance by comparisons with the SME and SML indices, compiled from a very large number of stations, and with an optimum solar wind “coupling function”, derived from simultaneous interplanetary observations. Results: It is shown that a station’s response patterns depend strongly on the level of geomagnetic activity because at low activity levels the effect of solar zenith angle on ionospheric conductivity dominates over the effect of station proximity to the midnight-sector auroral oval, whereas the converse applies at high activity levels. The metric V av for the two-station aa index is modelled to be 8.95%, whereas for the multi-station am index it is 0.65%. The ap (and hence Kp ) index cannot be analyzed directly this way because its construction employs tabular conversions, but the very low V av for am allows us to use 〈 ap 〉/〈 am 〉 to evaluate the UT-F response patterns for ap . This yields V av = 11.20% for ap . The same empirical test applied to the classical aa index and the new “homogenous” aa index, aa H (derived from aa using the station sensitivity model), yields V av of, respectively, 10.62% (i.e., slightly higher than the modelled value) and 5.54%. The ap index value of V av is shown to be high because it exaggerates the average semi-annual variation and has an annual variation giving a lower average response in northern hemisphere winter. It also contains a strong artefact UT variation. We derive an algorithm for correcting for this uneven response which gives a corrected ap value, ap C , for which V av is reduced to 1.78%. The unevenness of the ap response arises from the dominance of European stations in the network used and the fact that all data are referred to a European station (Niemegk). However, in other contexts, this is a strength of ap , because averaging similar data gives increased sensitivity and more accurate values on annual timescales, for which the UT - F response pattern is averaged out.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

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

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Space Weather and Space ClimateSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207