MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971374620 · doi:10.5194/angeo-38-1-2020

Surveying pulsating auroras

2020· article· en· W2971374620 on OpenAlexafffund
Eric Grono, E. Donovan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales Geophysicae · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Space AgencyGovernment of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsMagnetosphereLocal timeLatitudeMorningSkyAstrophysicsGeophysicsProtonGeologyGeodesyMagnetic fieldAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The early-morning auroral oval is dominated by pulsating auroras. These auroras have often been discussed as if they are one phenomenon, but they are not. Pulsating auroras are separable based on the extent of their pulsation and structuring into at least three subcategories. This study surveyed 10 years of all-sky camera data to determine the occurrence probability for each type of pulsating aurora in magnetic local time and magnetic latitude. Amorphous pulsating aurora (APAs) are a pervasive, nearly daily feature in the early-morning auroral oval which have an 86 % chance of occurrence at their peak. Patchy pulsating auroras (PPAs) and patchy auroras (PAs) are less common, peaking at 21 % and 29 %, respectively. Before local midnight, pulsating auroras are almost exclusively APAs. Occurrence distributions of APAs, PPAs, and PAs are mapped into the equatorial plane to approximately locate their source regions. The PA and PPA distributions primarily map to locations approximately between 4 and 9 RE, while some APAs map to farther distances, suggesting that the mechanism which structures PPAs and PAs is constrained to the inner magnetosphere. This is in agreement with Grono and Donovan (2019), which located these auroras relative to the proton aurora.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations39
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales GeophysicaeSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207