Comparisons of IRI model and electron density data for the sub-equatorial station, Natal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Database from CADI (Canadian Digital Ionosonde) recorded at Natal (5.2degrees S, 36degrees W) near solar maximum are used to compare with the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) predictions. Such comparison is done using vertical profiles of electron density and F region peak parameters, the maximum electron density (NmF2) and its corresponding height (HmF2), for geomagnetically quiet and disturbed conditions. The mean behavior of the observed vertical electron density profiles at 0300, 0900, 1500 and 2100 UT (UT = LT + 2.4 hr) for quiet and disturbed periods was compared with IRI profiles. Generally, good agreement between the two sets is noted, but IRI underestimates the heights of the bottomside F region at 0900 and 2100 UT. Also, discrepancies are found between the observed values of NmF2 and HmF2 and those obtained from IRI using URSI coefficients during evening-nighttime period.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Space physics comparison of ionospheric model predictions with electron density observations.
It compares ionospheric observations with a scientific model, not research practice.
Ionospheric model-data comparison at Natal; geophysics, not scholarly research as object.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".