The DOI matches its Crossref record.
On potential field models of the solar corona
Abstract
It is shown that the line-of-sight matching procedure involved in potential field models of the solar corona do not make good use of the available data because there is strong evidence that the magnetic field is nearly radial, and therefore nonpotential, at the photosphere. It is argued that the observed photospheric field should first be corrected for line-of-sight projection and then matched to the radial component of the potential field. It is shown that this procedure yields much stronger polar fields than the standard method and produces better agreement with high-latitude coronal holes and with white-light structures in the outer corona. The relationship of both methods to the observed inclination angles of polar plumes is also discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Asterospheric Magnetic Fields and Winds of Cool Stars
Schrijver, C. J., DeRosa, M. L., & Title, A. M. (2003) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/374982 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, Y.-M., & Sheeley, N. R., Jr.
- Venue
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 1992-06
- Volume
- 392
- Pages
- 310
- ISSN
- 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4357
- OpenAlex
- W2015545843
- Cited by
- 516
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On potential field models of the solar corona. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/171430
- The paper
- Wang, Y.-M., & Sheeley, N. R., Jr. (1992). On potential field models of the solar corona. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1086/171430
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
