MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136629806 · doi:10.1029/2020ja029024

ULF Wave Driven Radial Diffusion During Geomagnetic Storms: A Statistical Analysis of Van Allen Probes Observations

2021· article· en· W3136629806 on OpenAlexaff
J. K. Sandhu, I. J. Rae, J. R. Wygant, A. W. Breneman, S. Tian, C. E. J. Watt, R. B. Horne, L. G. Ozeke, Μαρίνα Γεωργίου, Maria‐Theresia Walach

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Environment Research CouncilApplied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins UniversitySight Research UK
KeywordsVan Allen ProbesGeomagnetic stormPhysicsVan Allen radiation beltEarth's magnetic fieldComputational physicsDiffusionRing currentStormElectric fieldWave powerGeophysicsMagnetic fieldMeteorologyPower (physics)Magnetosphere

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The impact of radial diffusion in storm time radiation belt dynamics is well‐debated. In this study we quantify the changes and variability in radial diffusion coefficients during geomagnetic storms. A statistical analysis of Van Allen Probes data (2012–2019) is conducted to obtain measurements of the magnetic and electric power spectral densities for Ultra Low Frequency (ULF) waves, and corresponding radial diffusion coefficients. The results show global wave power enhancements occur during the storm main phase, and continue into the recovery phase. Local time asymmetries show sources of wave power are both external solar wind driving and internal sources from coupling with ring current ions and substorms. Wave power enhancements are also observed at low L values ( L < 4). The accessibility of wave power to low L is attributed to a depression of the Alfvén continuum. The increased wave power drives enhancements in both the magnetic and electric field diffusion coefficients by more than an order of magnitude. Significant variability in diffusion coefficients is observed, with values ranging over several orders of magnitude. A comparison to the Kp parameterized empirical model of Ozeke et al. (2014) is conducted and indicates important differences during storm times. Although the electric field diffusion coefficient is relatively well described by the empirical model, the magnetic field diffusion coefficient is approximately ∼10 times larger than predicted. We discuss how differences could be attributed to data set limitations and assumptions. Alternative storm‐time radial diffusion coefficients are provided as a function of L * and storm phase.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 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

Citations46
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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