MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016803106 · doi:10.3390/e22040442

A Combination Prediction Model of Long-Term Ionospheric foF2 Based on Entropy Weight Method

2020· article· en· W3016803106 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersQingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and TechnologyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTerm (time)IonosphereEntropy (arrow of time)MathematicsStatistical physicsEconometricsMeteorologyApplied mathematicsStatisticsPhysicsGeophysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is critically meaningful to accurately predict the ionospheric F2 layer critical frequency (foF2), which greatly limits the efficiency of communications, radar, and navigation systems. This paper introduced the entropy weight method to develop the combination prediction model (CPM) for long-term foF2 at Darwin (12.4° S, 131.5° E) in Australia. The weight coefficient of each individual model in the CPM is determined by using the entropy weight method after completing the simulation of the individual model in the calibration period. We analyzed two sets of data to validate the method used in this study: One set is from 2000 and 2009, which are included in the calibration period (1998-2016), and the other set is outside the calibration cycle (from 1997 and 2017). To examine the performance, the root mean square error (RMSE) of the observed monthly median foF2 value, the proposed CPM, the Union Radio Scientifique Internationale (URSI), and the International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR) are compared. The yearly RMSE average values calculated from CPM were less than those calculated from URSI and CCIR in 1997, 2000, 2009, and 2017. In 2000 and 2009, the average percentage improvement between CPM and URSI is 9.01%, and the average percentage improvement between CPM and CCIR is 13.04%. Beyond the calibration period, the average percentage improvement between CPM and URSI is 13.2%, and the average percentage improvement between CPM and CCIR is 12.6%. The prediction results demonstrated that the proposed CPM has higher precision of prediction and stability than that of the URSI and CCIR, both within the calibration period and outside the calibration period.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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