Spatio‐Temporal Evolution of Global Ionospheric Storm Drivers and Hemispherical Asymmetry During 17–18 March 2015 Geomagnetic Storm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The local, regional, and global morphology of the ionospheric response of the March 2015 geomagnetic storm has been investigated by different studies. However, the spatio‐temporal evolution of the drivers of the global ionospheric response to this storm has not yet been investigated, using multi‐data sources, in detail. Therefore, in this study drivers of the ionospheric response to the March 17–18, 2015 storm are investigated. Spatial and temporal variations of deposition of solar wind energy are found to be the cause for hemispherical asymmetry of the response of the ionosphere; the American‐Canada‐Greenland sector, Northern Hemisphere high‐latitude ionosphere responded about 12 h earlier than the Southern Hemisphere (SH) high‐latitude ionosphere, resulted from hemispherical energy imbalance as detected from Hemispherical Power. The positive ionospheric storm observed in the high‐latitude regions is found to be due to solar wind energy deposition at high latitudes. Interestingly, it is found that the Northern hemisphere ionospheric positive storm shifted to the mid‐latitude and disappeared there whereas the SH ionospheric positive storm shifted to mid‐latitude and then farther to the low‐latitude with time; this spatio‐temporal evaluation of positive ionospheric storm is found to be due to the spatio‐temporal enhancement of the O/N 2 ratio. Also, the mid (Europe‐African)and low (Brazilian) latitudes positive ionospheric storms prevailed due to prompt penetration electric fields, disturbance dynamo electric fields, and enhancement of the O/N 2 ratio. Moreover, the negative ionospheric storm, observed at the NH high and mid‐latitudes in the American and Asian sectors, is linked to the reduction of the O/N 2 ratio.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".