MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1507410518 · doi:10.1029/2003gl019299

Comparison of the Odin/OSIRIS stratospheric ozone profiles with coincident POAM III and ozonesonde measurements

2004· article· en· W1507410518 on OpenAlexafffund
S. V. Petelina, E. J. Llewellyn, D. A. Degenstein, N. D. Lloyd, R. L. Gattinger, C. S. Haley, Christian von Savigny, E. Griffioen, I. C. McDade, W. F. J. Evans, D. Murtagh, J. de La Noë

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityTrent UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Research Council CanadaCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesSmithsonian Astrophysical ObservatoryTekesCanadian Space AgencySmithsonian Institution
KeywordsOsirisRadianceOzoneEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesStratosphereOzone layerMeteorologyRemote sensingGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present first statistical comparison results for stratospheric ozone density profiles retrieved from Odin/OSIRIS limb scattered radiance with 1220 coincident POAM III and 205 coincident ozonesonde measurements. Profiles are compared on a monthly basis from November 2001 to October 2002. Most of the time, differences between OSIRIS mean profiles and those measured by POAM III and ozonesondes were 5–7% between 15 km and 32 km, and within 15% above 32 km. In April–July 2002, OSIRIS mean profiles appear shifted downward by ∼1 km, introducing a difference of about 10% with POAM III and about 25% with ozonesonde profiles between 15 km and 32 km. This study demonstrates that outside the April–July 2002 period, the OSIRIS ozone profiles agree well with coincident ozonesonde and POAM III ozone profiles and make a valuable addition to the international ozone database available for research into global ozone change.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations24
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207