Laboratory investigations of the response of Brewer‐Mast ozonesondes to tropospheric ozone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Brewer‐Mast ozonesonde was used at Canadian stations from 1966 until 1980, when the Canadian network switched to the electrochemical concentration cell sonde. While the sondes appear to agree relatively well in the stratosphere, there is an evident discrepancy of 10–20% in tropospheric measurements [e.g., Tarasick et al., 1995 , Figure 4]. Comparison of Brewer‐Mast sondes with a calibrated ozone source yields some interesting insight into this discrepancy. Sonde response is strongly dependent on the preflight preparation procedures employed. Although sondes prepared via procedures introduced in the 1980s [ Claude et al., 1987 ] perform quite well, when prepared according to the procedures used in Canada in the 1970s, Brewer‐Mast sondes indicate 10–30% lower ozone than the calibrator. The following points are noted in particular: (1) a new Brewer‐Mast sonde shows a large (∼15%) increase in sensitivity between successive experiments; (2) especially at low (<100 ppb) O3 levels, the response even of previously flown sondes increases slowly with time; and (3) sondes show an additional slow increase of response with time that is apparently caused by ozone reactions with the phosphate buffer. The overall response curve indicated by 1, 2, and 3 implies that after correction to the observed total ozone, the earlier part of a flight would yield values that are too low, while the latter part would be too high. By applying a varying ozone input, simulating the typical variation in absolute ozone concentration experienced by a sonde in flight, we show that this can explain both the average correction factor (1.255) for the Canadian Brewer‐Mast record and the 10–20% discrepancy in tropospheric measurements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".