MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302356540 · doi:10.1002/essoar.10512197.1

Turbulence signatures in high--latitude ionospheric scintillation

2022· preprint· en· W4302356540 on OpenAlexafffund
K. Meziane, A. M. Hamza, P. T. Jayachandran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space AgencyNew Brunswick Innovation Foundation
KeywordsInterplanetary scintillationPhysicsScintillationTurbulenceIonosphereAmplitudeComputational physicsStatistical physicsPlasmaGeophysicsOpticsMeteorologySolar windQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ground-based amplitude measurements of GNSS signal during ionospheric scintillation are analyzed using prevalent data analysis tools developed in the fields of fluid and plasma turbulence. One such tool is the structure function of order $q$, with $q = 1$ to $q = 6$, which reduces to the computation of the second order difference in the GPS signal amplitude at various time lags, and allows for the exploration of dominant length scales in the propagation medium. We report the existence of a range where the structure function is linear with respect to time lag. This linear time-segment could be considered as an analog to the inertial range in the context of neutral and plasma turbulence theory. Below the linear range, the structure function increases nonlinearly with time lag, again in good concordance with the intermittent character of the signal, given that a parallel is drawn with turbulence theory. Quantitatively, the slope of the structure function in the linear range is in good agreement with the scaling exponent determined from in-situ measurements of the electrostatic potential at low altitude (E-region) and the electron density at the topside ionosphere (F-Region). This in turn suggests the conjecture that scintillation could be considered a proxy for ionospheric turbulence. Furthermore, we have found that the probability distribution function of the second order difference in the signal amplitude has non-Gaussian features at large time-lags; a result that seems inconsistent with equilibrium statistical physics which suggests a Gaussian distribution for the conventional random walk processes.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGNSS positioning and interferenceFrench-language works237,207