MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038729602 · doi:10.1029/2019sw002434

Solar Cycle Variations of GPS Amplitude Scintillation for the Polar Region

2020· article· en· W3038729602 on OpenAlexaffabout
K. Meziane, Anton Kashcheyev, S. Patra, P. T. Jayachandran, A. M. Hamza

Bibliographic record

VenueSpace Weather · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScintillationAmplitudeSolar cycleAtmospheric sciencesInterplanetary scintillationEarth's magnetic fieldSolar maximumPhysicsEnvironmental scienceSolar minimumPrecipitationLatitudePolarAstrophysicsMeteorologyAstronomyCoronal mass ejectionSolar windOpticsMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Global Positioning System (GPS) L1 amplitude data, obtained using the Canadian High Arctic Ionospheric Network (CHAIN) during the period 2008–2018, is used to study the seasonal and solar cycle dependence of high‐latitude amplitude scintillation. The occurrence of amplitude scintillation is predominantly confined to the 10–18 magnetic local time (MLT) and 72–87° Altitude‐Adjusted Corrected Geomagnetic (AACGM) sector and is a winter and equinoctial phenomenon. The occurrence of amplitude scintillation shows a clear seasonal and solar cycle dependence with a maximum value of ∼11% during the high solar activity early winter periods, and a secondary maximum in equinoctial months, and almost no occurrence during summer months. This pattern in occurrence suggests that amplitude scintillation is a phenomenon that is closely associated with the presence of patches and particle precipitation events.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpace WeatherSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207