Sentence examples for variation candidates from inspiring English sources

We believe option #1 is preferable for epoch 2010.0 because secular variation candidates were prepared using very different methodologies and we want to test main field candidates alone, not main field and secular variation candidates together.

A retrospective analysis of IGRF-10 main field candidates for epoch 2005.0 and predictive secular variation candidates for 2005.0 2010.0 using the new IGRF-11 models as a reference is also reported.

For example, some secular variation candidates (models A, D, E, G, H) are extrapolations of core field time variations over 2010 2015, while others (models B, C, F) are not (Finlay et al., 2010).

The 2010 main field candidate was produced from Challenging Minisatellite Payload (CHAMP) satellite data, while the 2015 main field and secular variation candidates were produced from Swarm and Ørsted satellite data.

In section 'Main field and secular variation candidates for IGRF 2015', we discuss our candidate models for the 2015 IGRF main field and secular variation, which were both extracted from the same parent model.

The reasons invoked were the limited availability of independent data, the need to remove contributions from other sources than the core prior to comparing measured data with candidate models, and the absence of measurements during the time interval of the secular variation candidates.

We describe the main field and secular variation candidate models for the 12th generation of the International Geomagnetic Reference Field model.

Data were extrapolated at model epochs using: (1) for epoch 2005.0, the secular variation and acceleration up to degree 8 obtained by Thébault et al. (2010); (2) for epoch 2010.0, the F secular variation candidate (option #1) or the secular variation candidate associated with each main field candidate (option #2).

We provide a 2010 DGRF main field candidate based on CHAMP satellite data, a 2015 IGRF main field candidate and a 2015 to 2020 secular variation candidate based on Swarm and Ørsted satellite data.

In the 'Results and discussion' section, we evaluate the model coefficients and derive the DGRF, IGRF, and secular variation candidate models and compare our model with the other IGRF-12 candidate models.

A comparison with results obtained in a similar evaluation of 1995 secular variation candidate IGRF and DGRF models over Southern Africa reveals a substantial improvement in the fit of present-day global secular variation models.