MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210538932 · doi:10.1002/essoar.10510350.1

Global propagation of ionospheric disturbances associated with the 2022 Tonga Volcanic Eruption

2022· preprint· en· W4210538932 on OpenAlexafffund
David R. Themens, Chris Watson, Nedjeljka Žagar, Sergiy Vasylkevych, Sean Elvidge, Anthony M. McCaffrey, Paul Prikryl, Benjamin Reid, Alan Wood, P. T. Jayachandran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationCanadian Space AgencyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsIonosphereGeologyVolcanoEpicenterVulcanian eruptionGNSS applicationsSatelliteSeismologyGeodesyGeophysicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we use measurements from over 4,735 globally distributed Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers to track the progression of travelling ionospheric disturbances (TIDs) associated with the 15 January 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai submarine volcanic eruption. We identify two distinct Large Scale TIDs (LSTIDs) and several subsequent Medium Scale TIDs (MSTIDs) that propagate radially outward from the eruption site. Within 3000 km of epicenter, LSTIDs of >1600 km and ~1350 km wavelengths are initially observed propagating at speeds of ~950 ms-1 and ~555 ms-1, before substantial slowing to ~600 ms-1 and ~390 ms-1, respectively. MSTIDs with speeds of 200-400 ms-1 are observed for six hours following eruption, the first of which comprises the dominant global ionospheric response and coincides with the atmospheric surface pressure disturbance associated with the eruption. These are the first results demonstrating the global impact of the Tonga eruption on the ionospheric state.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

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

Citations31
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207