Bibliographic record
Abstract
В статье представлены результаты комплексного исследования зависимости логарифма отношения интенсивности свечения I ph к линейной электронной плотности q от скоростей метеоров с абсолютной звездной величиной от 0 m до +8 m . Для решения поставленных задач использовались следующие данные: а) одновременные визуально- телескопические и радиолокационные наблюдения метеоров в обсерватории Ондржейов, б) объединенные данные одновременных оптических (фотографических, видео- и телевизионных) и радиолокационных наблюдений метеоров в Джодрелл-Бэнк, ГисАО, Гарварде и Оттаве и в) результаты лабораторного моделирования процессов свечения и ионизации железных и медных пылинок, где полученные результаты хорошо согласуются между собой. Исполь- зуя числовые значения lg I ph /q в зависимости от скорости для заданных массивов а) обсерватории Ондржейов и б) комбинированных данных одновременных оптических и радиолокационных наблюдений, были рассчитаны значения шкалы радивеличины метеоров. Оказалось, что разница в шкале радиовеличины между двумя крайними группами скоростей метеоров в двух наборах данных составляла от 1.7 m до 3 m . The article presents the results of a comprehensive study of the dependence of the logarithm of the ratio of the glow intensity I ph to the linear electron density q on the velocities of meteors with an absolute magnitude from 0 m to +8 m . To solve the problems, the following data were used: a) simultaneous visual-telescopic and radar observations of meteors at the Ondřejov Observatory, b) combined data from simultaneous optical (photographic, video and television) and radar observations of meteors at Jodrell Bank, HisAO, Harvard and Ottawa, and c) the results of laboratory modeling of the processes of glow and ionization of iron and copper dust grains, where the obtained results are in good agreement with each other. Using the numerical values of lg I ph /q as a function of velocity for the given arrays of a) the Ondřejov Observatory and b) combined data from simultaneous optical and radar observations, the values of the meteor radio magnitude scale were calculated. It turned out that the difference in the radio magnitude scale between the two extreme groups of meteor velocities in the two data sets ranged from 1.7 m to 3 m .
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.014 |
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".