Increase in seismic activity near the footprints of new radiation belts forming after geomagnetic storms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Recently, attention was drawn [1] that after geomagnetic storms that cause formation of new radiation belts in slot region or in the inner magnetosphere, after about 2 months, there is an increase in seismic activity near the footprints of geomagnetic lines of new radiation belts. More detailed studies showed [2] that on May 30, 1991, an earthquake M=7.0 occurred in Alaska with (54.57N, 161.61E) near the footprint of geomagnetic line L = 2.69 belonging to new radiation belt, which was observed by the CRRES satellite [3] around geomagnetic lines 2<L<3 after geomagnetic storm on March 24, 1991. After geomagnetic storm on September 3, 2012, the Van Allen Probes satellites observed new radiation belt around 3.0≤L≤3.5 [4], and about 2 months later, on October 28, 2012, earthquake M=7.8 occurred off the coast of Canada (52.79N, 132.1W) near the footprint of geomagnetic line L=3.32 belonging to the new radiation belt. Also, Van Allen Probes observed new radiation belt around L=1.5-1.8 after geomagnetic storm on June 23, 2015 [5], and ~2 months later, in September 2015, seismic activity noticeably increased near the footprint of these geomagnetic lines. We consider variations in seismic activity in connection with the strongest geomagnetic storms in 2003 with Dst~- 400 nT (Halloween Storm) and the formation of a belt of relativistic electrons in the inner magnetosphere around L~1.5 existed until the end of 2005 as observed SAMPEX [6]. Analysis of data from the USGS global seismological catalog showed that near the footprint of geomagnetic lines L=1.4-1.6 the number of earthquakes with M≥4.5 increased in 2003-2004 by ~70% compared with their number in two previous years. On the Northern Tien Shan, on December 1, 2003 a strong for the region earthquake M=6.0 occurred on the border of Kazakhstan and China (42.9N, 80.5E) near the footprint of L = 1.63, adjacent to the new radiation belt.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".