MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981307032 · doi:10.1029/2019ja027179

Rapid Outer Radiation Belt Flux Dropouts and Fast Acceleration During the March 2015 and 2013 Storms: The Role of Ultra‐Low Frequency Wave Transport From a Dynamic Outer Boundary

2020· article· en· W2981307032 on OpenAlexaff
L. G. Ozeke, I. R. Mann, L. Olifer, K. Y. Dufresne, Steven K. Morley, S. G. Claudepierre, K. R. Murphy, H. E. Spence, D. N. Baker, A. W. Degeling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVan Allen radiation beltVan Allen ProbesPhysicsFlux (metallurgy)DiffusionElectronComputational physicsMechanicsMagnetosphereChemistryNuclear physicsPlasma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present simulations of the outer radiation belt electron flux during the March 2015 and 2013 storms using a radial diffusion model. Despite differences in disturbance short‐time intensity between the two storms, the response of the ultra‐relativistic electrons in the outer radiation belt was remarkably similar, both showing a sudden drop in the electron flux followed by a rapid enhancement in the outer belt flux to levels over an order of magnitude higher than those observed during the pre‐storm interval. Simulations of the ultra‐relativistic electron flux during the March 2015 storm show that outward radial diffusion can explain the flux dropout down to L *~4. However, in order to reproduce, the observed flux dropout at L * < 4 requires the addition of a loss process characterized by an electron lifetime of around 1 hr operating below L *~3.5 during the flux dropout interval. Nonetheless, during the pre‐storm and recovery phase of both storms, the radial diffusion simulation reproduces the observed flux dynamics. For the March 2013 storm, the flux dropout across all L‐shells is reproduced by outward radial diffusion activity alone. However, during the flux enhancement interval at relativistic energies, there is evidence of a growing local peak in the electron phase space density at L *~3.8, consistent with local acceleration such as by very low frequency chorus waves. Overall, the simulation results for both storms can accurately reproduce the observed electron flux only when event specific radial diffusion coefficients are used, instead of the empirical diffusion coefficients derived from ultra‐low frequency wave statistics.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations61
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Space PhysicsSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207