MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3073392352 · doi:10.1029/2020jb019843

Modeling Geoelectric Fields Induced by Geomagnetic Disturbances in 3D Subsurface Geology, an Example From Southeastern Australia

2020· article· en· W3073392352 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liejun Wang, Jingming Duan, Adrian Hitchman, Andrew Lewis, William V. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarth's magnetic fieldMagnetotelluricsGeologyGeomagnetically induced currentGeophysicsMagnetometerMagnetic fieldGeomagnetic stormElectrical resistivity and conductivityPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Geomagnetic storms can cause power grid instabilities and blackouts due to excessive geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) flowing in electric transmission systems. In this study, we assess regional vulnerability to GICs by modeling the geoelectric fields induced by significant historic geomagnetic disturbance events in the presence of 3D subsurface geology using data from the Australian Lithospheric Architecture Magnetotelluric Project (AusLAMP) magnetotelluric array, Australia‐Wide Array of Geomagnetic Stations (AWAGS) magnetometer array, and Geoscience Australia geomagnetic observatory network. We analyze the vertical component of the magnetic field with respect to the horizontal magnetic‐field polarization for two magnetic storms and gain insight into the inductive effects associated with field polarization orientations in the 3D case. We also analyze the telluric field intensity and polarization for a unit geomagnetic field polarized in northerly and easterly directions at AusLAMP sites and find that in the presence of 3D geology the induced field has a very polarization‐sensitive anomaly. We model the geoelectric fields in southeastern Australia for the 1989 “Québec storm.” The induced ground electric fields are typically in the range 1,000–2,000 mV/km with a few sites within 2,000–5,000 mV/km on highly resistive regions and in coastal areas, and below 300 mV/km on inland sedimentary basins. The current study focuses on magnetic‐field variations with periods between 120 and ~20,000 s due to bandwidth limits in our magnetotelluric tensor data and the Nyquist limit for the 60 s sampling of our geomagnetic‐field data. Hence, our modeled maximum values should be considered lower estimates of potential real values.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid EarthSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207