MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of May 2024 Geomagnetic Superstorm on the Submarine Cables

2025· article· en· W4408235932 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shibaji Chakraborty, D. H. Boteler, Xueling Shi, Michael D. Hartinger, J. B. H. Baker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnvironmental Engineering and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubmarineEarth's magnetic fieldComputer scienceGeologyOceanographyPhysicsMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the first half of May 2024, solar active regions (ARs) 3663 and 3664 produced numerous solar flares, SEPs, and associated CMEs, which created major geospace disturbances. Specifically, the CME associated with the aforementioned ARs caused G5 geomagnetic storms, pushing Kp beyond 9 and Dst below -400 nT, creating a superstorm. During the storm, we observed large fluctuations in the magnetospheric and ionospheric current systems, recorded by space-borne and ground-based instruments such as magnetometers, coherent radars, and ISRs. Previous studies reported possible hazards of storm induced ground electric fields (GEF) and associated geomagnetically induced currents (GICs). While magnetic superstorms are known to be known to permanently damage ground-based transformers and lead to blackouts [1], we have not had a clear vision of the impact of these superstorms on underwater electrical equipment such as submarine cables, due to the low accessibility of underwater measurements. The March 1989 storm, the largest superstorm of the last century, caused widespread effects on power systems, including a blackout of the Hydro-Quebec system, and created rapid fluctuations on submarine cables [2, and references therein]. Due to the lack of underwater measurements, the general understanding of submarine cable risk and vulnerability during superstorms is limited. We have recently developed a capability to model (SCUBAS) the impact of storm-driven GICs on underwater cables [3]. In this study, we will leverage this capability to estimate the voltage fluctuations during the May 2024 superstorm and compare them with the March 1989 superstorm. We will also include the variability in the model parameters and uncertainties in the inputs to create ensemble outputs from SCUBAS to quantify the uncertainties. This study will be the steppingstone towards validating the SCUBAS estimates during extreme space weather events and will provide insight into the health of the underwater electronics during these types of space weather hazards.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental Engineering and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207