MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386387480 · doi:10.1029/2023ja031596

Interhemispheric Observations of ULF Waves Caused by Foreshock Transients Under Quiet Solar Wind Conditions

2023· article· en· W4386387480 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S. J. Noh, Hyomin Kim, Doğacan Öztürk, Ilya Kuzichev, Zhonghua Xu, Hui Zhang, Andrew Vu, Terry Z. Liu, J. M. Weygand, Michael D. Hartinger, Xueling Shi, M. J. Engebretson, A. J. Gerrard, Eun‐Hwa Kim, M. Lessard, C. T. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Resources CanadaLos Alamos National LaboratoryGoddard Space Flight CenterNational Science Foundation
KeywordsForeshockGeophysicsSolar windPhysicsBow shock (aerodynamics)Impulse (physics)MagnetometerNorthern HemisphereGeologyInterplanetary magnetic fieldMagnetic fieldAtmospheric sciencesShock waveSeismologyMechanicsAftershockClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Foreshock transient (FT) events are frequently observed phenomena that are generated by discontinuities in the solar wind. These transient events are known to trigger global‐scale magnetic field perturbations (e.g., ULF waves). We report a series of FT events observed by the Magnetospheric Multiscale mission in the upstream bow shock region under quiet solar wind conditions. During the event, ground magnetometers observed significant Pc1 wave activity as well as magnetic impulse events in both hemispheres. Ground Pc1 wave observations show ∼8 min time delay (with some time differences) from each FT event which is observed at the bow shock. We also find that the ground Pc1 waves are observed earlier in the northern hemisphere compared to the southern hemisphere. The observation time difference between the hemispheres implies that the source region of the wave is the off‐equatorial region.

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)0.000
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 score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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