Hemispheric symmetry and asymmetry of poleward moving radar auroral forms (PMRAFs) and associated polar cap patches during a geomagnetic storm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Magnetopause reconnection is known to impact the dayside ionosphere by driving fast ionospheric flows, auroral transients, and high-density plasma structures named polar cap patches. However, most of the observed reconnection impact is limited to one hemisphere, and a question arises as to how symmetric the impact is between hemispheres. Methods: We address the question using interhemispheric observations of poleward moving radar auroral forms (PMRAFs), which are a “fossil” signature of magnetopause reconnection, during a geomagnetic storm. We are particularly interested in the temporal repetition and spatial structure of PMRAFs, which are directly affected by the temporal and spatial variation of magnetopause reconnection. PMRAFs are detected and traced using SuperDARN complemented by DMSP, Swarm, and GPS TEC measurements. Results: The results show that PMRAFs occurred repetitively on time scales of about 10 min. They were one-to-one related to pulsed ionospheric flows, and were collocated with polar cap patches embedded in a Tongue of Ionization. The temporal repetition of PMRAFs exhibited a remarkably high degree of correlation between hemispheres, indicating that PMRAFs were produced at a similar rate, or even in close synchronization, in the two hemispheres. However, the spatial structure exhibited significant hemispherical asymmetry. In the Northern Hemisphere, PMRAFs/patches had a dawn-dusk elongated cigar shape that extended >1,000 km, at times reaching >2,000 km, whereas in the Southern Hemisphere, PMRAFs/patches were 2–3 times shorter. Conclusion: The interesting symmetry and asymmetry of PMRAFs suggests that both magnetopause reconnection and local ionospheric conditions play important roles in determining the degree of symmetry of PMRAFs/patches.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".