MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1623908870 · doi:10.1029/2010gl046012

Quantifying stratospheric ozone trends: Complications due to stratospheric cooling

2011· article· en· W1623908870 on OpenAlexaff
C. A. McLinden, Vitali Fioletov

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOzone layerEnvironmental scienceOzoneAtmospheric sciencesStratosphereOzone depletionClimatologyMeteorologyAstrobiologyGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[1] Recent studies suggest that ozone turnaround (the second stage of ozone recovery) is near. Determining precisely when this occurs, however, will be complicated by greenhouse gas‐induced stratospheric cooling as ozone trends derived from profile data in different units and/or vertical co‐ordinates will not agree. Stratospheric cooling leads to simultaneous trends in air density and layer thicknesses, confounding the interpretation of ozone trends. A simple model suggests that instruments measuring ozone in different units may differ as to the onset of turnaround by a decade, with some indicting a continued decline while others an increase. This concept was illustrated by examining the long‐term (1979–2005) ozone trends in the SAGE (Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment) and SBUV (Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet) time series. Trends from SAGE, which measures number density as a function of altitude, and SBUV, which measures partial column as a function of pressure, are known to differ by 4–6%/decade in the upper stratosphere. It is shown that this long‐ standing difference can be reconciled to within 2%/decade when the trend in temperature is properly accounted for.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.211 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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