Wavenumber Spectra of Atmospheric Gravity Waves and Medium‐Scale Traveling Ionospheric Disturbances Based on More Than 10‐Year Airglow Images in Japan, Russia, and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We have studied atmospheric gravity waves (AGWs) and nighttime medium‐scale traveling ionospheric disturbances (MSTIDs) by applying three‐dimensional spectral analysis technique to 557.7‐ and 630.0‐nm airglow images at Shigaraki (SGK) (35°N, 136°E, 1999–2017) and Rikubetsu (RIK) (44°N, 144°E, 1999–2017), Japan, Athabasca (ATH), Canada, (55°N, 247°E, 2005–2017), and Magadan (MGD), Russia (60°N, 151°E, 2008–2017), focusing on their horizontal wavenumber spectra. For the AGWs in 557.7‐nm images, the power spectra in summer are stronger than in other seasons, probably due to stronger tropospheric convection. The highest energy content of the waves are mostly at wavelengths between 20 and 300 km at MGD, ATH, and RIK, while it is above 200 km at SGK. The largest power spectral density is obtained at RIK at wavelengths of 30–100 km and then ATH. The slopes of the horizontal wavenumber spectra varies from −2.77 to −3.22. From the MSTIDs in 630.0‐nm images, the power spectra in summer at RIK and SGK are stronger than those in other seasons regardless of solar activity. The power spectra in solar quiet time are stronger than those in solar active time at all four stations. These features can be explained by the Perkins instability with coupling between sporadic E and F layers. The spectral slope decreases with increasing latitudes. Weak positive correlations were obtained between the daily wave power of AGWs in 557.7‐nm images and MSTIDs in 630.0‐nm images, suggesting that the MSTIDs in the thermosphere may be partially generated by the AGWs from the mesopause region.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".