MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379520618 · doi:10.1029/2022ja031034

Comments on “New Insights From the 2003 Halloween Storm Into the Colaba 1600 nT Magnetic Depression During the 1859 Carrington Storm” by S. Ohtani (2022)

2023· article· en· W4379520618 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B. T. Tsurutani, G. S. Lakhina, Rajkumar Hajra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Engineering Research BoardIndian National Science Academy
KeywordsInterplanetary spaceflightPhysicsCoronal mass ejectionMagnetic cloudInterplanetary magnetic fieldStormMagnetic fieldGeomagnetic stormGeologyAstrophysicsGeophysicsSolar windMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Colaba, India ∼−1,600 nT magnetic spike caused by an interplanetary sheath magnetic field inducing a “dayside R1‐field aligned current wedge” during the Carrington magnetic storm proposed by Ohtani (2022), https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA030596 seems highly improbable. Normal interplanetary magnetic field intensities of ∼5 nT have previously been shown to be sufficient to explain the ∼+120 nT sudden impulse (SI + ) observed at Colaba during the storm (Tsurutani et al., 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024779 ). Magnetohydrodynamic theory (Kennel et al., 1985, https://doi.org/10.1029/GM034p0001 ) predicts a maximum of 4× magnetic field compression by a fast shock, giving an interplanetary sheath field of ∼20 nT, a value too low to support the Ohtani (2022), https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA030596 hypothesis. The Ohtani (2022), https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA030596 (and G. Siscoe et al., 2006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2005.02.102 ) claim of a further 10× amplification of the interplanetary sheath fields has not been verified in near‐Earth interplanetary sheaths. The original (Tsurutani et al., 2003, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009504 ) hypothesis that an interplanetary coronal mass ejection magnetic cloud (MC) having southward magnetic fields of ∼90 nT caused the Carrington magnetic storm main phase of peak SYM‐H/Dst = −1,760 nT seems more likely. The short time between the SI + and the storm main phase onset implies a foreshortened interplanetary sheath. The extremely rapid recovery of the magnetic storm was hypothesized by Tsurutani et al. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024779 as being due to nonlinear ring current losses. We point out that the Hydro‐Quebec 1989 storm was caused by multiple shock‐sheaths and MCs (Lakhina & Tsurutani, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40562‐016‐0037‐4 ) unlike the interplanetary causes of the Carrington storm. The Hydro‐Quebec event was a “stealth” magnetic storm.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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