Bibliographic record
Abstract
The size distribution of solar energetic particle (SEP) events, which represent a more energetic subset than flare events, is mostly found to follow power law distribution functions, rather than Poissonian random distribution functions. However, the numerical value of the power law slope is generally flatter than the slopes of the flare size distributions in hard X-rays, soft X-rays, and EUV (Hudson 1978), which can be explained in at least four different ways: (i) normal flares and proton flares are produced by two fundamentally different acceleration mechanisms; (ii) proton flares behave differently than normal flares; (iii) the fractal dimensionality of SEP events is different from normal flares; (iv) proton flares are subject to a selection bias toward the most energetic events and thus are not a representative sample of large flares. Nevertheless, the standard fractal-diffusive SOC model can explain the observed slopes of SEP size distributions, but observations reveal deviations from straight power law functions, or broken power law slopes, and thus are not unique and need to be modeled in more detail.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".