Validation of NeQuick 2 Model Topside Ionosphere and Plasmasphere Electron Content Using COSMIC POD TEC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An accurate representation of the topside ionosphere and plasmasphere electron content is still one of the important issues for ionospheric models, particularly for those used in GNSS applications. In this work, a validation of NeQuick 2 empirical ionospheric model has been performed in terms of ionosphere topside and plasmasphere electron content in the altitude range ~800–20,200 km. For this purpose, total electron content (TEC) data derived from precise orbit determination (POD) antennas onboard COSMIC low earth orbit (LEO) satellites tracking GPS signals have been used. The data span the period from 2006 to 2018 and correspond to different heliogeophysical conditions. In order to remove unrealistic TEC values from the validation process, a specific filtering procedure has been applied to POD‐derived TEC data. Subsequently, the statistical analysis of the difference between the modeled and the corresponding experimentally derived TEC values has been performed on data obtained during geomagnetically quiet periods. The results are presented as a function of solar activity level, season, local time, and geomagnetic latitude plots. They show that NeQuick 2 model underestimates the ionosphere topside and plasmasphere electron content, particularly during the early morning hours. The conditions under which the discrepancy between the model and experimental data is the highest have been also identified and considered as indications for future model improvements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".