Morphological Comparison of Standard Scintillation Indices at the Canadian Arctic During a Strong Geomagnetic Storm: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent decades, the scintillation phenomenon at high‐latitudes characterized by “Phase without Amplitude” has become increasingly prevalent. Consequently, there is a growing tendency to focus only on the phase scintillation index in the polar region. Nevertheless, dealing with the scintillation issue solely based on the stereotype is inappropriate. In this study, we present a case study to certificate and compare the disturbances of two types of standard scintillation indices over the Canadian Arctic during a strong geomagnetic storm on 1 December 2023. Overall, all scintillation indices were elevated vigorously on the polar cap and auroral oval almost at the same time. Specifically, with the appearance of strong total electron content (TEC) gradient and fast flow, the amplitude scintillation indices () raised clearly above the background (0.05), often exceeding 0.2, however, which is still weaker than that of phase scintillation indices (, usually >0.4 radians). It evidences that at high latitudes is not so faint as to be negligible. Moreover, the less variability observed in relative to may be partially due to the Fresnel filtering effect. Therefore, the study presents the distinct disturbances of two types of scintillation indices over the polar region, challenging the popular impression of the “Phase without Amplitude” scintillation phenomenon at high latitudes and also reminding us to take a serious look at them.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".