MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111039099 · doi:10.1029/2020ja028288

Revisiting the Behavior of the <i>E</i>‐Region Electron Temperature During Strong Electric Field Events at High Latitudes

2020· article· en· W3111039099 on OpenAlexaff
J.‐P. St.‐Maurice, Lindsay Goodwin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectric fieldElectronAltitude (triangle)Electron temperatureComputational physicsPhysicsAmplitudeLatitudeField (mathematics)Incoherent scatterIonosphereGeophysicsOpticsMathematicsQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A rich data set acquired during a long‐lived strong electric field event by the north‐facing Resolute Bay incoherent scatter radar confirms and strengthens conclusions previously drawn from several less comprehensive studies of E ‐region electron heating by large amplitude Farley‐Buneman waves. For the exceptionally abundant set of very good quality data we uncovered, the E ‐region electron temperature response to strong ambient electric fields is described very accurately by a simple linear function of the electric field at 110 and 117 km altitudes. The linear dependence starts at 40 mV/m and shows no hint of deviating from the linear response up to 150 mV/m (the maximum electric field observed during this event). Based on this new evidence, we have revisited previous E ‐region electron temperature observations from various altitudes and have built a model that is consistent with present and past observations. The model is made of simple linear variations in the electron temperature with slopes that depend on altitude. It should prove to be a useful reference for anyone interested in the E ‐region electron temperature anywhere between 100 and 120 km altitudes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Space PhysicsSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207