MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027110799 · doi:10.1186/s40623-020-01170-w

Comparison of SuperDARN peak electron density estimates based on elevation angle measurements to ionosonde and incoherent scatter radar measurements

2020· article· en· W3027110799 on OpenAlexafffundabout
A. V. Koustov, Sydney Ullrich, R. G. Gillies, David R. Themens, Н. Нишитани

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Planets and Space · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNew Brunswick Innovation FoundationCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of CalgaryNational Science Foundation
KeywordsIonosondeGeodesyGeologyIncoherent scatterRadarIonogramElevation (ballistics)IonosphereElectron densityRemote sensingElectronGeophysicsPhysicsAstronomyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Measurements of the electron density at the F region peak by the Canadian Advanced Digital Ionosonde (CADI) and the Resolute Incoherent Scatter Radar (RISR) are used to assess the quality of peak electron density estimates made from elevation angle measurements by the Super Dual Auroral Radar Network (SuperDARN) high-frequency radar at Rankin Inlet (RKN). All three instruments monitor the ionosphere near Resolute Bay. The CADI-RKN joint dataset comprises measurements between 2008 and 2017 while RISR-RKN dataset covers about 60 daylong events in 2016. Reasonable agreement between the RKN estimates and measurements by CADI and RISR is shown. Two minor discrepancies are discussed: RKN radar daytime peak electron density overestimation by ~ 10% and underestimation by up to 30% in other time sectors. In winter nighttime and dawn, cases were identified in which the RKN radar significantly overestimates the peak electron density. This occurs when the phase in the RKN interferometer measurements is incorrectly shifted by $$ 2\uppi $$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn><mml:mi>π</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math> , and this is most significant when electron densities are low. Statistical fitting to the joint data sets, split into four time sectors of a day, has been done and parameters of the fit have been determined. These allow slight adjustment of measured real-time RKN values to better reflect real peak electron densities in the ionosphere within its field of view.

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 score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Planets and SpaceSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207