Correspondence between the ULF wave power spatial distribution and auroral oval boundaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world-wide spatial distribution of the wave power in the Pc5 band during magnetic storms has been compared with auroral oval boundaries. The poleward and equatorward auroral oval boundaries are estimated using either the British Antarctic Survey database containing IMAGE satellite UV observations of the aurora or the OVATION model based on the DMSP particle data. The “epicenter” of the spectral power of broadband Pc5 fluctuations during the storm growth phase is mapped inside the auroral oval. During the storm recovery phase, the spectral power of narrowband Pc5 waves, both in the dawn and dusk sectors, is mapped inside the auroral oval or around its equatorward boundary. This observational result confirms previously reported effects: the spatial/temporal variations of the Pc5 wave power in the morning/pre-noon sector are closely related to the dynamics of the auroral electrojet and magnetospheric field-aligned currents. At the same time, narrowband Pc5 waves demonstrate typical resonant features in the amplitude-phase latitudinal structure. Thus, the location of the auroral oval or its equatorward boundary is the preferred latitude for magnetospheric field-line Alfven resonator excitation. This effect is not taken into account by modern theories of ULF Pc5 waves, but it could be significant for the development of more adequate models.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".