A comparison of FORMOSAT-3/COSMIC radio occultation and ionosonde measurements in sporadic E detection over mid- and low-latitude regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The investigation of sporadic E or Es layers typically relies on ground-based or satellite data. This study compares the Es layers recorded in ionograms with those detected using GNSS L1 signal-to-noise ratio data from FORMOSAT-3/COSMIC radio occultation at mid and low latitudes. GPS radio occultation measurements of Es layers, during an 11-year time span of 2007–2017, within a 2° latitude × 5° longitude grid around each ionosonde site are compared to the Es recordings of the ionosonde. By comparing multi-year radio occultation data with recordings from six ionosonde stations at mid and low latitudes, it was discovered that at least 20% of the Es layer detection results between each ionosonde and its crossing GPS radio occultation measurements did not agree. The results show that the agreement between the two methods in Es detection is highly dependent on the season and local time. This study suggests that Es layer recordings from ground-based ionosonde observations have the best agreement with the Es layers detected by radio occultation data during daytime and local summers. The difference in the Es detection mechanisms between the two methods can explain the inconsistency between Es events measured by these two methods. The detection of Es layers in ionograms relies on the high plasma concentration in the E region, whereas signal scintillations caused by a large vertical gradient of the plasma density in the E region are considered a sign of Es occurrence in satellite techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".