Poleward-moving recurrent auroral arcs associated with impulse-excited standing hydromagnetic waves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Earth's high-latitude ionosphere, the poleward motion of east–west elongated auroral arcs has been attributed to standing hydromagnetic waves, especially when the auroral arcs appear quasi-periodically with a recurrence time of a few minutes. The validation of this scenario requires spacecraft observations of ultra-low-frequency hydromagnetic waves in the magnetosphere and simultaneous observations of poleward-moving auroral arcs near the spacecraft footprints. Here we present the first observational evidence from the multi-spacecraft THEMIS (Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms) mission and the conjugated all-sky imager to support the scenario that standing hydromagnetic waves can generate the quasi-periodic appearance of poleward-moving auroral arcs. In this specific event, the observed waves were toroidal branches of the standing hydromagnetic waves, which were excited by a pulse in the solar wind dynamic pressure. Multi-spacecraft measurements from THEMIS also suggest higher wave frequencies at lower L shells (consistent with the distribution of magnetic field line eigenfrequencies), which indicates that the phase difference across latitudes would increase with time. As time proceeds, the enlarged phase difference corresponds to a lower propagation speed of the auroral arcs, which agrees very well with the ground-based optical data.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".