Global Distribution of EMIC Waves and Its Association to Subauroral Proton Precipitation During the 27 May 2017 Storm: Modeling and Multipoint Observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent simulation studies using the RAM‐SCB model showed that proton precipitation contributes significantly to the total energy flux deposited into the subauroral ionosphere thereby affecting the magnetosphere‐ionosphere coupling. In this study, we use the BATS‐R‐US + RAM‐SCB model to understand the evolution of ElectroMagnetic Ion Cyclotron (EMIC) waves in the inner magnetosphere, their correspondence to the proton precipitation into the subauroral ionosphere, and to assess the performance of the model in reproducing the EMIC wave‐particle interactions. During the 27 May 2017 storm, Arase and RBSP‐A satellites observed typical signatures of EMIC waves in the inner magnetosphere. Within this interval, Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/MetOp satellites observed significant proton precipitation in the dusk‐midnight sector. Simulation results show that H‐ and He‐band EMIC waves are excited within regions of strong temperature anisotropy near the plasmapause. The simulated growth rates of EMIC waves show a similar trend to that of the EMIC wave power observed by the Arase and RBSP‐A satellites, suggesting that the model can reproduce the EMIC wave activity qualitatively. The simulated H‐band waves in the dusk sector are stronger than He‐band waves possibly due to the presence of excess protons in the boundary conditions obtained from the BATS‐R‐US code. The precipitating proton fluxes reproduced by the simulation with EMIC waves are found to agree reasonably well with the DMSP and NOAA/MetOp satellite observations. It is suggested that EMIC wave scattering of ring current ions can account for proton precipitation observed by the DMSP and MetOp satellites during the 27 May 2017 storm.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".