MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389778710 · doi:10.1029/2023sw003590

Validating Ionospheric Models Against Technologically Relevant Metrics

2023· article· en· W4389778710 on OpenAlexafffund
Alex T. Chartier, Josh Steele, Glenn Sugar, David R. Themens, S. K. Vines, J. D. Huba

Bibliographic record

VenueSpace Weather · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNuclear Safety and Security CommissionU.S. Air ForceCanadian Space AgencyIntelligence Advanced Research Projects ActivityHeliophysics DivisionNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsIonosphereGlobal Positioning SystemInternational Reference IonosphereComputer sciencePosition (finance)Space weatherGeodesyMeteorologyGeophysicsTECGeologyPhysicsTotal electron contentTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract New, open access tools have been developed to validate ionospheric models in terms of technologically relevant metrics. These are ionospheric errors on GPS 3D position, HF ham radio communications, and peak F‐region density. To demonstrate these tools, we have used output from Sami is Another Model of the Ionosphere (SAMI3) driven by high‐latitude electric potentials derived from Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment, covering the first available month of operation using Iridium‐NEXT data (March 2019). Output of this model is now available for visualization and download via https://sami3.jhuapl.edu . The GPS test indicates SAMI3 reduces ionospheric errors on 3D position solutions from 1.9 m with no model to 1.6 m on average (maximum error: 14.2 m without correction, 13.9 m with correction). SAMI3 predicts 55.5% of reported amateur radio links between 2–30 MHz and 500–2,000 km. Autoscaled and then machine learning “cleaned” Digisonde NmF2 data indicate a 1.0 × 1011 el. m3 median positive bias in SAMI3 (equivalent to a 27% overestimation). The positive NmF2 bias is largest during the daytime, which may explain the relatively good performance in predicting HF links then. The underlying data sources and software used here are publicly available, so that interested groups may apply these tests to other models and time intervals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.228
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpace WeatherSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207