MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307870041 · doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.1022475

Modeling geomagnetic induction in submarine cables

2022· article· en· W4307870041 on OpenAlexafffund
Shibaji Chakraborty, D. H. Boteler, Xueling Shi, Benjamin S. Murphy, Michael D. Hartinger, Xuan Wang, Greg Lucas, J. B. H. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersNuclear Safety and Security CommissionNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Geological SurveyNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEarth's magnetic fieldSubmarineMagnetotelluricsGeologyElectromagnetic inductionGeomagnetically induced currentGeophysicsSeismologyEngineeringGeomagnetic stormElectrical resistivity and conductivityMagnetic fieldElectrical engineeringOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Submarine cables have become a vital component of modern infrastructure, but past submarine cable natural hazard studies have mostly focused on potential cable damage from landslides and tsunamis. A handful of studies examine the possibility of space weather effects in submarine cables. The main purpose of this study is to develop a computational model, using Python, of geomagnetic induction on submarine cables. The model is used to estimate the induced voltage in the submarine cables in response to geomagnetic disturbances. It also utilizes newly acquired knowledge from magnetotelluric studies and associated investigations of geomagnetically induced currents in power systems. We describe the Python-based software, its working principle, inputs/outputs based on synthetic geomagnetic field data, and compare its operational capabilities against analytical solutions. We present the results for different model inputs, and find: 1) the seawater layer acts as a shield in the induction process: the greater the ocean depth, the smaller the seafloor geoelectric field; and 2) the model is sensitive to the Ocean-Earth layered conductivity structure.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysicsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207