MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113950948 · doi:10.5194/epsc2020-986

Refined study of the structure of the quasiperpendicular supercritical Martian shock: new results and methodology

2020· article· en· W3113950948 on OpenAlexaff
Sofía Burne, C. Bertucci, C. Mazelle, Laura Morales, K. Meziane, J. R. Espley, J. S. Halekas, David Mitchell, E. Penou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMartianSolar windPhysicsBow shock (aerodynamics)Shock (circulatory)Shock waveSupercritical fluidGeophysicsAtmospheric sciencesMechanicsPlasmaMars Exploration ProgramAstrobiologyThermodynamicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of the structure of the Martian shock is crucial to understand its microphysics and it is of special interest to understand the solar wind interaction with an unmagnetized, atmospheric body. The Martian bow shock is a rich example of a supercritical, mass-loaded, collisionless shock and it is one of the smallest of the solar system (both in absolute size and in terms of the solar wind ion gyroradii, of the same order of the curvature radius). This raises questions related to which particle acceleration and energy dissipation mechanism can take place, when its small size means dissipation timescales are too long for a stationary shock to convert the excess kinetic energy into heat. In addition, this shock coexists with ultra-low frequency (ULF) upstream waves, that are generated from the pick-up of exospheric ions. We use MAVEN plasma and magnetic field data to show that the fine structure of the Martian supercritical quasi-perpendicular shock (given by the typical supercritical substructures: the foot, ramp and overshoot) is in many ways comparable with that of the Terrestrial shock, which presents a substantially different solar wind – planet interaction. We observe a shock foot of the order of an upstream ion convected gyroradius, that agrees with the model of specular reflection of foot formation (Woods, 1971; Livesey et al., 1984; Gosling and Thomsen, 1985). Also, we find that the shock ramp is typically very narrow, of the order of a few electron inertial lengths. The presence of a well-defined foot and overshoot confirm the importance of dissipative effects, even in such a small bow shock boundary. In this work we also provide a meticulous analysis methodology that stresses the importance on the correct processing of MAVEN data, and the clarity and consistency of the criteria used in the data selection and analysis. We pay special attention to the determination of the external limit of the entry to the ion foot and the identification of the main and secondary overshoots, where the presence of the ULF waves could mean an erroneous identification of these shock features. We also attempt to assess the non-stationarity of the shock substructures, even with the limitations of a single spacecraft mission, by computing a range of local shock speeds to obtain the substructures spatial widths from the timeseries within an upper and lower value.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207