MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963836561

Modeling the recovery phase of extreme geomagnetic storms

2013· article· en· W2963836561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. Cid, J. Palacios, E. Sáiz, Y. Cerrato, Jesús Aguado, Antonio Guerrero

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJunta de Comunidades de Castilla-La ManchaComisión Interministerial de Ciencia y TecnologíaDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsGeomagnetic stormStormBlackoutMagnetosphereExponential functionIntensity (physics)MeteorologyEvent (particle physics)Phase (matter)Environmental scienceClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesGeologyPhysicsEarth's magnetic fieldMathematicsMathematical analysisAstrophysicsMagnetic field
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recovery phase of the largest storms ever recorded has been studied. These events provide an extraordinary opportunity for two goals: (1) to validate the hyperbolic model by Aguado et al. [2010] for the recovery phase after disturbances as severe as the Carrington event, or that related to the Hydro-Quebec blackout in March 1989, and (2) to check whether the linear relationship between the recovery time and the intensity of the storm still complies. Our results reveal the high accuracy of the hyperbolic decay function to reproduce the recovery phase of the magnetosphere after an extreme storm. Moreover, the characteristic time that takes the magnetosphere to recover depends in an exponential way on the intensity of the storm, as indicated by the relationship between the two parameters involved in the hyperbolic decay. This exponential function can be approached by a linear function when the severity of the storm diminishes.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207