Multi‐Instrument Characterization of Magnetospheric Cold Plasma Dynamics in the June 22, 2015 Geomagnetic Storm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a comparison of magnetospheric plasma mass/electron density observations during an 11‐day interval which includes the geomagnetic storm of June 22, 2015. For this study we used: Equatorial plasma mass density derived from geomagnetic field line resonances (FLRs) detected by Van Allen Probes and at the ground‐based magnetometer networks EMMA and CARISMA; in situ electron density inferred by the Neural‐network‐based Upper hybrid Resonance Determination algorithm applied to plasma wave Van Allen Probes measurements. The combined observations at L ∼ 4, MLT ∼ 16 of the two longitudinally separated magnetometer networks show a temporal pattern very similar to that of the in situ observations: A density decrease by an order of magnitude about 1 day after the Dst minimum, a partial recovery a few hours later, and a new strong decrease soon after. The observations are consistent with the position of the measurement points with respect to the plasmasphere boundary as derived by a plasmapause test particle simulation. A comparison between plasma mass densities derived from ground and in situ FLR observations during favorable conjunctions shows a good agreement. We find however, for L < ∼3, the spacecraft measurements to be higher than the corresponding ground observations with increasing deviation with decreasing L , which might be related to the rapid outbound spacecraft motion in that region. A statistical analysis of the average ion mass using simultaneous spacecraft measurements of mass and electron density indicates values close to 1 amu in plasmasphere and higher values (∼2–3 amu) in plasmatrough.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".