How open data and interdisciplinary collaboration improve our understanding of space weather: A risk and resiliency perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Space weather refers to conditions around a star, like our Sun, and its interplanetary space that may affect space- and ground-based assets as well as human life. Space weather can manifest as many different phenomena, often simultaneously, and can create complex and sometimes dangerous conditions. The study of space weather is inherently trans-disciplinary, including subfields of solar, magnetospheric, ionospheric, and atmospheric research communities, but benefiting from collaborations with policymakers, industry, astrophysics, software engineering, and many more. Effective communication is required between scientists, the end-user community, and government organizations to ensure that we are prepared for any adverse space weather effects. With the rapid growth of the field in recent years, the upcoming Solar Cycle 25 maximum, and the evolution of research-ready technologies, we believe that space weather deserves a reexamination in terms of a “risk and resiliency” framework. By utilizing open data science, cross-disciplinary collaborations, information systems, and citizen science, we can forge stronger partnerships between science and industry and improve our readiness as a society to mitigate space weather impacts. The objective of this manuscript is to raise awareness of these concepts as we approach a solar maximum that coincides with an increasingly technology-dependent society, and introduce a unique way of approaching space weather through the lens of a risk and resiliency framework that can be used to further assess areas of improvement in the field.
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 | 0.054 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.042 | 0.083 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".