Impacts of Subauroral Polarization Streams on Storm‐Enhanced Density Plume and Consequently on Polar Tongue of Ionization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The influences of subauroral polarization streams (SAPS) on storm‐enhanced density (SED) plume and consequently on polar tongue of ionization (TOI), an important topic in the field of magnetosphere‐ionosphere‐thermosphere coupling, however, remain undetermined. The Thermosphere‐Ionosphere‐Electrodynamics General Circulation Model (TIEGCM) with/without an empirical SAPS model has been used to investigate the impacts of SAPS on local ionosphere‐thermosphere system, which in turn affect the SED plume and consequently the TOI. The modeled total electron content and ion drift velocities agree reasonably well with the observations of Global Navigation Satellite System and Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellites on 17 March 2013. The TIEGCM simulations show that SAPS can significantly affect the electron density of SED plume and consequently of TOI. The ionospheric‐thermospheric effect of SAPS can reduce the electron density of the SED plume in the afternoon sector and enhance the SED plume in the noon sector, which moves the SED plume dawnward. SAPS‐induced electron depletions in the throat region undergo anti‐sunward convection into the polar cap to weaken the TOI. A term‐by‐term analysis of the O+ ion continuity equation in the F‐region shows that the electron density depletions on the duskward edge of the SED plume are mainly due to the increased local plasma loss rates because of SAPS elevated plasma‐neutral temperatures and O/N2 reduction because of thermosphere upwelling. The electron density enhancements on the edge of the SED plume near noon are mainly due to the SAPS‐induced westward plasma E × B transports and the O/N2 increment because of thermospheric downwelling.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".