MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360610363 · doi:10.1029/2022ja031103

Quasiperiodic ELF/VLF Emissions Associated With Corresponding Pulsations of the Geomagnetic Field

2023· article· en· W4360610363 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Mychajlo Hajoš, F. Němec, A. G. Demekhov, O. Santolı́k, M. Parrot, Tero Raita, Barbora Bezděková

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesGrantová Agentura České RepublikyCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of AlbertaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEarth's magnetic fieldMagnetometerQuasiperiodic functionUltra low frequencyIntensity (physics)PhysicsMagnetic fieldField intensityGeophysicsSchumann resonancesFlux (metallurgy)Atmospheric sciencesIonosphereNuclear magnetic resonanceOpticsCondensed matter physicsAstronomyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a comparison between properties of quasiperiodic (QP) extra low frequency/very low frequency emissions observed by the low‐altitude DEMETER spacecraft and ultra‐low frequency (ULF) geomagnetic field pulsations measured on the ground by the Canadian Array for Realtime Investigations of Magnetic Activity system of flux‐gate magnetometers and by the Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory magnetometer. Altogether, we have analyzed 398 QP events observed at the times when DEMETER was close to the ground‐based magnetometers. The modulation periods of the analyzed QP events were larger than 10 s and their frequency bandwidths were larger than 200 Hz. For a part of QP emissions with modulation periods about 30 s, there was a good agreement between the modulation periods and peak frequencies of ULF magnetic field pulsations measured on the ground. These QP emissions appear to be closely associated with coincident geomagnetic pulsations (QP1 type), and they represent ∼18% of the total number of analyzed QP events. No corresponding geomagnetic pulsations were identified in the remaining 82% of QP events (QP2 type). The intensity of QP1 events does not seem to correlate with the intensity of geomagnetic field pulsations, while the intensity of QP2 events increases with the integral intensity of geomagnetic field pulsations. Based on the observed association between QP emissions and geomagnetic field pulsations, we estimate the radial distance of the generation region of QP1 emissions to L ∼ 7.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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