Heliophysics Great Observatories and international cooperation in Heliophysics: An orchestrated framework for scientific advancement and discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We suggest that the next era of Heliophysics should focus on the Sun-Heliosphere and Geospace as each a system-of-systems, and recommend a coordinated, deliberate, worldwide scientific effort to answer long-standing questions that will remain unanswered without a unified program. Many of the biggest unanswered science questions that remain across Heliophysics center around the interconnectivity of the different physical systems and the role of mesoscale dynamics in modulating, regulating, and controlling that interconnected behavior. Heliophysics has made key progress understanding both the large-scale dynamics and the microphysical processes that occur in these dynamic systems. Such understanding grew out of a systematic approach to study both limits of the system, from global, with the coordinated missions of the International Solar Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) program, to micro, with largely uncoordinated (albeit coincident) missions such as Cluster, Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS), Van Allen Probes, Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS), Parker Solar Probe, and Solar Orbiter. We suggest that the international Heliophysics community should embark on a grand program to study these system-of-systems holistically, with coordinated, multipoint measurements. We particularly recommend an emphasis on resolving the mesoscale dynamics that links micro to global, and a whole-of-science approach that includes ground-based measurements and advanced numerical modeling. In effect, we propose a mesoscale ISTP type program that would consist of a system of Great Observatories capable of revealing the connections among systems from the solar interior to the top of Earth's atmosphere. The paradigm and specific approaches outlined in this paper could serve as a strategic imperative and overarching theme that binds our Solar and Space Physics communities together under a common scientific objective. By its very nature, the type of program we argue for would be large, with several coordinated elements, and international in scope. It would include space-borne missions and coordinated ground-based observatories, artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) methods of analyzing large and complex datasets, and next-generation numerical modeling. The need to coordinate and integrate these different elements is independent of any specific mission implementation. Hence, we suggest the Heliophysics community organize around an ISTP-type program, ISTPNext, with associated Heliophysics "Great Observatories".
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 | 0.028 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".