MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234514234 · doi:10.1002/essoar.10503588.1

The Diffuse Auroral Eraser

2020· preprint· en· W4234514234 on OpenAlexaff
Riley Troyer, A. N. Jaynes, Sarah Jones, D. J. Knudsen, T. Trondsen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectronic mailWorld Wide WebSpace (punctuation)PhysicsComputer scienceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The source of diffuse aurora has been widely studied and linked to electron cyclotron harmonic (ECH) and upper-band chorus (UBC) waves. It is known that these waves scatter 100s of eV to 10s of keV electrons from the plasma sheet, but the relative contribution of each wave type is still an open question. In this paper, we report on a new structured diffuse aurora feature observed on March 15, 2002 that could help further our understanding. This feature is characterized by four phases: (1) the initial phase exhibiting regular diffuse aurora, (2) the brightening phase, where a stripe of diffuse aurora rapidly brightens, (3) the eraser phase, where the stripe dims to below its initial state, and (4) the recovery phase, where the diffuse aurora returns to its original brightness. Using a superposed epoch analysis of 22 events, we calculate the average recovery phase time to be 20 seconds, although this varies widely between events. We hypothesize that the process responsible for these auroral eraser events could be an interaction between ECH and chorus waves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207