F-region ionospheric parameters observed in the equatorial and low latitude regions during medium solar activity in the Brazilian sector and comparison with the IRI-2007 model results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ionospheric sounding observations using the Canadian Advanced Digital Ionosondes (CADIs) operational at Palmas (PAL; 10.2 degrees S, 48.2 degrees W; dip latitude 6.6 degrees S; a near-equatorial station), and Sao Jose dos Campos (SJC, 23.2 degrees S, 45.9 degrees W; dip latitude 17.6 degrees S; a low-latitude station located under the southern crest of the equatorial ionospheric anomaly), Brazil, are analyzed during the different seasons viz., winter (June and July 2003), spring (September and October 2003), summer (December 2003 and January 2004), and fall (March and April 2004). The period used has medium solar activity (sunspot number between 77.4 and 39.3). The seasonal mean variations (using only geomagnetically quiet days) of the ionospheric parameters foF2 (critical frequency of the F-region), hpF2 (virtual height at 0.834 foF2; considered to be close to hmF2 (peak height of the F-region)), and h'F (minimum virtual height of the F-region) are calculated and compared between PAL and SJC. The prominent differences between PAL and SJC are as follows: h'F variations show strong post-sunset enhancement at PAL during the seasons of spring, summer, and fall; hpF2 variations show pre-sunrise uplifting of the F-layer at both stations during all the seasons and the hpF2 values during the daytime are lower at SJC compared with PAL during all the seasons; the foF2 variations show mid-day bite-out at PAL during all the seasons and SJC shows strong equatorial ionospheric anomaly during summer and fall seasons. Also, the seasonal variations of the ionospheric parameters foF2 and hpF2 (with +/- 1 standard deviation) observed at PAL and SJC are compared with the IRI-2007 model results of foF2 and hmF2. In addition, variations of the foF2 and hpF2 observed at SJC are compared with the IRI-2001 model results of foF2 and hmF2. It should be pointed out that the ionospheric parameter hpF2 is much easier to obtain using computer program developed at UNIVAP compared with hmF2 (using POLAN program). During the daytime due to underlying ionization hpF2 estimated is higher (approximately 50 km) than the true peak height hmF2. During the nighttime hpF2 is fairly close to hmF2. The comparison between the foF2 variations observed at PAL and SJC with the IRI-2007 model results shows a fairly good agreement during all the seasons. However, the comparison between the hpF2 variations observed at PAL and SJC with the hmF2 variations with the IRI-2007 model results shows: (1) a fairly good agreement during the nighttime in all the seasons; (2) the model results do not show the pre-sunrise uplifting of the F-layer at PAL and SJC in any season; (3) the model results do not show the post-sunset uplifting of the F-layer at PAL; (4) considering that, in general, hpF2 is higher than hmF2 during the daytime by about 50 km, the model results are in good agreement at PAL and SJC during all the seasons except summer at SJC, when large discrepancies in the observed hpF2 and modeled hmF2 are observed. Also, it has been observed that, in general, hmF2 values for SJC calculated using IRI-2001 are higher than IRI-2007 during the daytime in winter, summer, and fall. However, hmF2 values for SJC calculated using IRI-2001, are lower than IRI-2007 during the nighttime in spring. (C) 2010 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".