MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ANALYSES OF GEOMAGNETIC DATA SETS FROM OBSERVATORIES AND CORRELATION BETWEEN THEM

2020· article· en· W3097053513 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laurențiu Asimopolos, Natalia-Silvia Asimopoli, drian-Aristide Asimopolos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarthquake Detection and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarth's magnetic fieldWaveletGeomagnetic stormQUIETFourier transformGeologyScalar (mathematics)StormAmplitudeGeophysicsGeodesyMeteorologyMagnetic fieldPhysicsMathematicsComputer scienceMathematical analysisOpticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to analyze the associated spectrum of geomagnetic field, frequencies intensity and the time of occurrence. We calculated the variation of the correlation coefficients, with mobile windows of various sizes, for the recorded magnetic components at different latitudes and latitudes. We included in our study the observatories: Surlari (USA), Honolulu (HON), Scott Base (SBA), Kakioka (KAK), Tihany (THY), Uppsala (UPS), Wingst (WNG) and Yellowknife (YKC). We used the data of these observatories from INTERMAGNET for the bigest geomagnetic storm from the last two Solar Cycles. We have used for this purpose a series of filtering algorithms, spectral analysis and wavelet with different mother functions at different levels. In the paper, we show the Fourier and wavelet analysis of geomagnetic data recorded at different observatories regarding geomagnetic storms. Fourier analysis highlight predominant frequencies of magnetic field components. Wavelet analysis provides information about the frequency ranges of magnetic fields, which contain long time intervals for medium frequency information and short time intervals for highlight frequencies, details of the analyzed signals. Also, the wavelet analysis allows us to decompose geomagnetic signals in different waves. The analyzes presented are significant for the studied of the geomagnetic storm. The data for the next days after the storm showed a mitigation of the perturbations and a transition to a quiet day of the geomagnetic field. In both, the Fourier Transformation and the Wavelet Transformation, transformation evaluation involves the calculation of a scalar product between the analyzed signal and a set of signals that form a particular base in the vector space of the finite energy signals. Fourier representation use and orthogonal vectors base, whereas in the case of wavelet there is the possibility to use also bases consisting of independent linear non-orthogonal vectors. Unlike the Fourier transform, which depends only on a single parameter, wavelet transform type depends on two parameters, a and b. As a result, the graphical representation of the spectrum is different, wavelet analysis bringing more information about geomagnetic pattern of each observatory with that own specific conditions

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.085 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEarthquake Detection and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207