MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of Geomagnetic Storms on Ionosphere Variability and Precise Point Positioning Application in High Latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere

2021· article· en· W4211224119 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ge Wang, Ningbo Wang, Zishen Li, Kai Zhou, Ang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Journal of Space Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarthquake Detection and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTECEarth's magnetic fieldIonosphereGeomagnetic stormQUIETGeologyGeodesyTotal electron contentNorthern HemisphereLatitudeScintillationGlobal Positioning SystemStormGeomagnetic latitudeInterplanetary scintillationEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesGeophysicsPhysicsMagnetic fieldCoronal mass ejection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the ionospheric scintillation data of the Canadian High Arctic Ionospheric Network (CHAIN), the variation characteristics of ionospheric Total Electric Content (TEC), phase scintillation and Rate of TEC Index (ROTI) were analyzed during the 26 August 2018 geomagnetic storm period. Results show that the TEC anomalies reach 20 TECU on global scale and 6 TECU over Canadian regions, respectively. The occurrence of phase scintillations is about 12.6% during the selected stormy day, which is only around 1% during geomagnetic quiet period. The occurrence of ROTI exhibits high correlation with that of phase scintillations during stormy geomagnetic conditions. The impact of ionospheric scintillations on positioning performance was analyzed by means of GPS Precise Point Positioning (PPP). It is proved that the 3D positioning root mean square errors are within 0.4 m for all test stations during the quiet geomagnetic condition. When it comes to the high geomagnetic condition, the magnitude of positioning errors significantly increase, which reaches 0.9 and 1.7 m in horizontal and vertical directions, respectively.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese Journal of Space ScienceSame topicEarthquake Detection and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207