MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963359652 · doi:10.1029/2019ja026726

Predicting Lower Band Chorus With Autoregressive‐Moving Average Transfer Function (ARMAX) Models

2019· article· en· W2963359652 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Laura E. Simms, M. J. Engebretson, Craig J. Rodger, J. W. Gjerloev, G. D. Reeves

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterLos Alamos National LaboratoryU.S. Geological SurveyUniversità degli Studi dell'AquilaFlorida Institute of TechnologyAlberta Agricultural Research InstituteAugsburg UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsChorusAutocorrelationAutoregressive modelSolar windPhysicsInterplanetary magnetic fieldSubstormMagnetosphereMeteorologyStatisticsMathematicsMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We model lower band chorus observations from the DEMETER satellite using daily and hourly autoregressive‐moving average transfer function (ARMAX) equations. ARMAX models can account for serial autocorrelation between observations that are measured close together in time and can be used to predict a response variable based on its past behavior without the need for recent data. Unstable distributions of radiation belt source electrons (tens of keV) and the substorm activity (SMEd from the SuperMAG array) that is thought to inject these electrons were both statistically significant explanatory variables in a daily ARMAX model describing chorus. Predictions from this model correlated well with observations in a hold‐out test data set (validation correlation of 0.675). Source electron flux was most influential when observations came from the same day or the day before the chorus measurement, with effects decaying rapidly over time. Substorms were more influential when they occurred on previous days, presumably due to their injecting source electrons from the plasma sheet. A daily ARMAX model with interplanetary magnetic field (IMF)| B |, IMF B z , and solar wind pressure as inputs instead of those given above was somewhat less predictive of chorus ( r =0.611). An hourly ARMAX model with only solar wind and IMF inputs was even less successful, with a validation correlation of 0.502.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

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 Space PhysicsSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207