Evolution of ozone depletion on Antarctic and sub-Antarctic regions (1979-2012)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the middle eighties, strong stratospheric ozone depletion during spring was discovered over Antarctica. Since then, the scientific community has put large efforts in performing studies directed to evaluate the magnitude and consequences of this depletion and to take the necessary measures to revert the situation to the scenarios before 1970. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol established a list of ozone depleting products and faced out policies. As consequence of these restrictions on ozone depleting substances, the ozone layer should start to recover in the 21st century. In order to study the evolution of the Antarctic ozone depletion, we analyzed the ozone hole area and mass deficit and seasonal total ozone column (TOC) minimum. We also performed a seasonal and bi-monthly analysis for TOC time series (1979-2012), at twenty Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic stations. The number of days inside the vortex (TOC below 220DU) per season (September-December) and for September-October and November-December were analyzed, fitting the time series with a second degree polynomial According to this study, ozone hole area would have peaked between 2001 and 2002 (R=0.91, p<0.01), while the minimum TOC would have occurred between 2000 and 2001(R=0.91, p<0.01). Mass deficit is only provided since 2005 and it showed a decrease since then, although ot statistically significant as consequence of the short time series. From the 20 analyzed stations, 80% showed that the number of days per season inside the vortex peaked between 2000 and 2003 and for 55% of the stations the number of days inside the vortex for September-October peaked between 1999 and 2004.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".