MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W383970019 · doi:10.15094/00006368

A comparison between vertical winds in the lower thermosphere and magnetic field perturbations on the ground

2003· article· en· W383970019 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mamoru Ishii, M. Conde, Roger W. Smith, M. Krynicki, E. Sagawa, Shinichi Watari

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermosphereGeophysicsField (mathematics)Atmospheric sciencesGeologyMagnetic fieldEnvironmental sciencePhysicsIonosphereMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vertical winds in the lower thermosphere are estimated from OI557.7-nm Doppler shifts obtained with a Fabry-Perot interferometer at the Poker Flat Research Range (65.12N, 147.43W in geographic coordinate), Alaska. The temporal variation of vertical winds was compared with the horizontal component of the magnetic field obtained at Poker Flat and two other sites, Gakona (62.12N, 145.14W) and Fort Yukon (66.36N, 145.22W). Two nights of observations were examined and the results were shown here. The results showed that temporal variations of vertical winds were similar to that of magnetic field variation during each substorm. In some cases the results of cross correlation between these two parameters showed that the magnetic field perturbation leads vertical winds in the earlier period of the substorm. The difference increased gradually and reached a maximum at around the center of the recovery phase. From there, the differences decreased. The mechanism for the relation between the two parameters is still unclear, but this result suggests an intimate relation between ionospheric currents and vertical wind in the thermosphere.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207