Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Polar Cap (PC) indices, PCN North based on magnetic observations from Qaanaaq (THL) in Greenland and PCS South based on magnetic data from Vostok in Antarctica, are very useful indices for studies of solar wind‐magnetosphere interactions and for space weather monitoring and forecasts. PCN indices are issued from the Danish Space Research Institute (DTU Space) while PCS indices are issued from the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) in St Petersburg. Unfortunately, series of invalid PCS values have been provided from AARI and used in a number of publications issued since the PC index concept was endorsed by the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy (IAGA) in 2013. In spite of the disclosure of the failure in the PCS indices in 2018, publishing at the IAGA‐supported International Service of Geomagnetic Indices of the invalid indices has continued up to now (2022). The present contribution defines the invalidating features of the PCS indices in question, conveys examples, and discusses the applications in peer‐reviewed publications.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".