MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322773348 · doi:10.1029/2022jd037841

Observational and Model Impact of Tonga Volcano Eruption on Schumann Resonance

2023· article· en· W4322773348 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andrey Mezentsev, A. P. Nickolaenko, А. В. Швец, Yu. P. Galuk, A. Schekotov, Masashi Hayakawa, Renato Romero, Jun Izutsu, I. G. Kudintseva

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsSchumann resonancesVolcanoLightning (connector)ThunderstormSeismologyGeologyPlumeUpper-atmospheric lightningMeteorologyLightning strikeIonosphereGeophysicsClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesPhysicsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tonga volcano eruption on 15 January 2022 was accompanied by an unprecedentedly high lightning activity in the volcano plume which significantly exceeded the lightning activity level of the whole globe. We compare model computations with the observed effect of the Tonga volcano eruption on the global electromagnetic Schumann resonance (SR). This SR disturbance was detected at many observatories covering the whole globe. SR power spectral density was computed using the updated model of the Earth‐ionosphere cavity, with the global lightning detections recorded by the World Wide Lightning Location Network, as a source. The modeled dynamics of the SR disturbances during Tonga eruption agrees qualitatively and quantitatively with SR recordings from six globally separated observatories. Unprecedentedly high lightning activity during the active phase of eruption caused significant suppression of the global lightning detection rate without noticeable effect on real global thunderstorm activity.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207