MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281291333 · doi:10.1029/2022ja030366

Simultaneous Observations of a Polar Cap Sporadic‐E Layer by Twin Incoherent Scatter Radars at Resolute

2022· article· en· W4281291333 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yong Wang, David R. Themens, Cheng Wang, Yu‐Zhang Ma, A. S. Reimer, R. H. Varney, Robert Gilies, Zan‐Yang Xing, Qinghe Zhang, P. T. Jayachandran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsIncoherent scatterIonosondePolarSporadic E propagationIonosphereGeophysicsGeologyRadarPolar capF regionMiddle latitudesGeodesyPhysicsElectron densityAtmospheric sciencesElectronAstronomyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract At high latitudes, the Sporadic‐E layer (Es layer) is a common phenomenon but is still poorly understood due to sparse measurements and the difficulty of conventional mechanisms to operate. In this study, an interesting case of polar cap Es layer is first studied by using the twin incoherent scatter radars (northward‐looking face of Resolute Incoherent‐Scatter Radar and Resolute Incoherent‐Scatter Radar‐Canada), a Canadian Advanced Digital Ionosonde, and a Magnetometer, all at Resolute, Canada. From several electron density profiles of the twin radars, the horizontal scale of the polar cap Es layer is found to be greater than 350 km. Moreover, the polar cap Es layer is determined to be drifting from the bottom F region (>150 km) to the lower E region. Furthermore, a unique appearance of double polar cap Es layers is observed. As a result, these peculiar signatures inspire a newly proposed process that involves the combination of localized electric fields and gravity 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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Space PhysicsSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207