MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283808040 · doi:10.1029/2022ja030262

Statistical Study of EMIC Wave Propagation Using Space‐Ground Conjugate Observations

2022· article· en· W4283808040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. J. Noh, Hyomin Kim, M. Lessard, M. J. Engebretson, Vyacheslav Pilipenko, Eun‐Hwa Kim, J. R. Johnson, Ilya Kuzichev

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsMagnetosphereGeophysicsIonosphereComputational physicsVan Allen ProbesGeodesyElectrojetGeosynchronous orbitWave propagationEarth's magnetic fieldMagnetometerSatelliteAstrophysicsVan Allen radiation beltMagnetic fieldGeologyAstronomyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the present study, we explore the observational characteristics of Electromagnetic Ion Cyclotron (EMIC) wave propagation from the source region to the ground. We use magnetometers aboard Geostationary Operational Environment Satellite (GOES) 13, the geosynchronous orbit satellite at 75°W, and at Sanikiluaq ground station (SNK, 79.14°W and 56.32°N in geographic coordinates, and L ∼ 6.0 in a dipole magnetic field) which is located in northern Canada. Using these magnetically conjugate observatories, simultaneous EMIC wave observations are carried out. We found a total of 295 coincident and 248 non‐coincident EMIC wave events between GOES 13 and the SNK station. Our statistical analysis reveals that the coincident events are predominantly observed on the dayside. The wave normal angles are slightly higher for the non‐coincident events than for coincident events. However, the coincidence of the waves is mostly governed by the intensity and duration of the wave. This is confirmed by the geomagnetic environment which shows higher auroral electrojet (AE) and Kp indices for the coincident events. We also found that some events show high‐frequency ( f > 0.4 Hz) wave filtering. The statistics of the high‐frequency filtered and non‐filtered wave events show that there are clear magnetic local time (MLT) and F10.7 index differences between the two groups, as well as in ionospheric electron density measurements. In addition, we also found differences in the wave properties which possibly indicate that the propagation in the magnetosphere also plays an important role in the wave filtering.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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