MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1784670537 · doi:10.1029/2009gl041375

Pan‐Arctic sunphotometry during the ARCTAS‐A campaign of April 2008

2010· article· en· W1784670537 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Saha, Norman T. O’Neill, E. W. Eloranta, R. S. Stone, T. F. Eck, S. Zidane, David Daou, Alexandru Lupu, Glen Lesins, Masataka Shiobara, L. J. B. McArthur

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaYork UniversityUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationU.S. Department of EnergyFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAerosolArcticClimatologySmokeThe arcticAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyGeologyGeographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements were acquired at six Arctic sunphotometer sites during the ARCTAS‐A (April, 2008) campaign. Numerous smoke events were identified and related to extensive forest and agricultural fires in eastern Russia and northern Kazakhstan/southwestern Russia respectively. An analysis of the fine (sub‐micron) optical depths from the six stations indicated the presence of underlying low frequency trends which were coherent with general meteorological considerations, source information, model estimates and remote sensing information. Low frequency (diurnal) coarse‐mode optical depth events were observed at a number of the stations; these singular events are likely due to ice particles whose nucleation may have been associated with the presence of smoke, or possibly dust.

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)0.001
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 score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations56
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207