MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392771657 · doi:10.1002/asna.20230149

Calculated brightness temperatures of solar structures compared with <scp>ALMA</scp> and Metsähovi measurements

2024· article· en· W4392771657 on OpenAlexaff
Filip Matković, Roman Brajša, Matej Kuhar, A. O. Benz, H.‐G. Ludwig, C. L. Selhorst, Ivica Skokić, D. Sudar, A. Hanslmeier

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomische Nachrichten · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
FundersCentros de Pesquisa, Inovação e Difusão, Fundação Amazônia Paraense de Amparo à PesquisaNational Institutes of Natural SciencesAlexander von Humboldt-StiftungAalto-YliopistoNational Astronomical Observatory of JapanNational Radio Astronomy ObservatoryFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloFundação Amazônia Paraense de Amparo à PesquisaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftHrvatska Zaklada za ZnanostKorea Astronomy and Space Science InstituteNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsMillimeterBrightnessBrightness temperatureChromosphereElectron densityWavelengthSunspotElectronElectron temperatureSubmillimeter ArrayRange (aeronautics)Computational physicsAstronomySpectral lineMaterials scienceOpticsGalaxyStar formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) allows for solar observations in the wavelength range of 0.3–10 mm, giving us a new view of the chromosphere. The measured brightness temperature at various frequencies can be fitted with theoretical models of density and temperature versus height. We use the available ALMA and Metsähovi measurements of selected solar structures (quiet sun (QS), active regions (AR) devoid of sunspots, and coronal holes (CH)). The measured QS brightness temperature in the ALMA wavelength range agrees well with the predictions of the semiempirical Avrett–Tian–Landi–Curdt–Wülser (ATLCW) model, better than previous models such as the Avrett–Loeser (AL) or Fontenla–Avrett–Loeser model (FAL). We scaled the ATLCW model in density and temperature to fit the observations of the other structures. For ARs, the fitted models require 9%–13% higher electron densities and 9%–10% higher electron temperatures, consistent with expectations. The CH fitted models require electron densities 2%–40% lower than the QS level, while the predicted electron temperatures, although somewhat lower, do not deviate significantly from the QS model. Despite the limitations of the one‐dimensional ATLCW model, we confirm that this model and its appropriate adaptations are sufficient for describing the basic physical properties of the solar structures.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomische NachrichtenSame topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207