MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Real Heights of SuperDARN F Region Echoes Inferred from Electron Density Measurements by the Rankin Inlet and RISR-C Radars

2025· preprint· en· W4412626240 on OpenAlexafffund
A. V. Koustov, Mehdi Ghalamkarian Nejad, Hayden Fast, P. V. Ponomarenko

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron Lasers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of CalgaryNational Science Foundation
KeywordsInletRadarGeologyElectronElectron densityRemote sensingGeodesyPhysicsMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceGeophysicsOceanographyComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is one of the first attempts to estimate statistically the real, physical height of SuperDARN F region echoes in the polar cap. To achieve this, measurements of the electron density in the scattering volume of the Rankin Inlet SuperDARN radar are compared with the electron density profiles measured by the incoherent scatter radar RISR-C (located at Resolute Bay) in beams oriented towards Rankin Inlet. The scatter height of echoes was found to be in the range of 210-270 km with the most frequently occurring values of ~230-250 km. Overall, no strong trend in echo height versus local time was identified although the tendency for heights to be lower during noon/afternoon hours was noticed. Seasonally, the echo heights were ~10 km larger at equinox compared to winter. The echo heights were below F2 layer peak height by ~45 km with largest offsets during morning/prenoon hours. Typical differences in the height of 12 and 10 MHz echoes was found to be 10-15 km with no obvious diurnal and seasonal trends.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 topicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron LasersFrench-language works237,207