MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7053204235

Total Electron Content and Ionospheric Scintillation Measurements during the Total Solar Eclipse of July 2, 2019

2019· article· en· W7053204235 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly Commons (Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsFuture Earth
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal electron contentTECInterplanetary scintillationIonosphereScintillationSolar eclipseGNSS applicationsAmplitude
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) provide a reliable source of radio wave signals that is available at all times throughout the entire planet. These signals are known to also interact with the ionosphere, where there is a high concentration of free electrons and ions. This in turn creates a framework for scientists to continuously monitor and analyze how these signals are affected by free electron and ion concentration irregularities in this region. Such irregularities may induce fluctuations in both signal amplitude and phase known as ionospheric scintillations. The behavior of the ionosphere is also known to be directly related with solar activity as well as localized phenomena, such as solar eclipses. This study aims to measure the impact of the solar eclipse of July 2, 2019 on local ionospheric properties in terms of total electron content (TEC) and scintillation indices S4 and SigmaPhi. Two GNSS receivers (NovAtel GPStation-6) were stationed in La Serena, Chile in collaboration with the University of La Serena and in Cerro Pachón, Chile along the Andes Lidar Observatory, where they collected TEC and scintillation data prior, during and after totality. We have observed a pronounced drop and recovery of TEC on both stations as well as supporting high rate data to explore possibilities of eclipse induced scintillations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly Commons (Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University)Same topicLaser Design and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207