MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998143307 · doi:10.1029/2019ja027139

Dependence of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field on Heliocentric Distance at 0.3–1.7 AU: A Six‐Spacecraft Study

2020· article· en· W2998143307 on OpenAlexaff
Cedar Hanneson, C. L. Johnson, Anna Mittelholz, M. Al Asad, Colin Goldblatt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsInterplanetary spaceflightInterplanetary magnetic fieldSpacecraftMagnetometerAmplitudeSolar windMagnetic fieldAstrophysicsMagnitude (astronomy)Solar minimumVariation (astronomy)Solar cycleAstronomyGeodesyOpticsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We use magnetometer data taken simultaneously by MESSENGER, VEX, STEREO and ACE to characterize the variation of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) with heliocentric distance, , for 1 AU. Power law fits () to the individual IMF components and magnitude indicate that, on average, the IMF is more tightly wound and its strength decreases less rapidly with than the Parker spiral prediction. During Solar Cycle 24, temporal changes in were insignificant, but changes in amplitude, , were correlated with sunspot number, up to sunspot number 84. MAVEN data taken at 1.4–1.7 AU since late 2014 broadly confirm and extend these results in space and time. Our study demonstrates the importance of simultaneous observations from multiple spacecraft to separate heliocentric distance and temporal variations in the IMF and provides a modern benchmark for comparison with data from the Parker Solar Probe Mission.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Space PhysicsSame topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207