MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155429038 · doi:10.1088/1361-6501/abf804

Inference of plasma parameters from fixed-bias multi-needle Langmuir probes (m-NLP)

2021· article· en· W3155429038 on OpenAlexafffund
Joshua Guthrie, R. Marchand, Sigvald Marholm

Bibliographic record

VenueMeasurement Science and Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersEuropean CommissionNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaH2020 European Research CouncilNorges ForskningsrådUniversitetet i OsloCompute Canada
KeywordsLangmuir probeRadial basis functionScalingComputer scienceInferencePlasmaData setParameter spaceAlgorithmArtificial intelligencePhysicsStatisticsMathematicsPlasma diagnosticsArtificial neural networkNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract New approaches are presented to infer plasma densities and satellite floating potentials from currents collected with fixed-bias multi-needle Langmuir probes (m-NLP). Using synthetic data obtained from kinetic simulations, comparisons are made with inference techniques developed in previous studies and, in each case, model skills are assessed by comparing their predictions with known values in the synthetic data set. The new approaches presented rely on a combination of an approximate analytic scaling law for the current collected as a function of bias voltage, and multivariate regression. Radial basis function regression (RBF) is also applied to Jacobsen et al ’s procedure (2010 Meas. Sci. Technol. 21 085902) to infer plasma density, and shown to improve its accuracy. The direct use of RBF to infer plasma density is found to provide the best accuracy, while a combination of analytic scaling laws with RBF is found to give the best predictions of a satellite floating potential. In addition, a proof-of-concept experimental study has been conducted using m-NLP data, collected from the Visions-2 sounding rocket mission, to infer electron densities through a direct application of RBF. It is shown that RBF is not only a viable option to infer electron densities, but has the potential to provide results that are more accurate than current methods, providing a path towards the further use of regression-based techniques to infer space plasma parameters.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeasurement Science and TechnologySame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207