MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000438450 · doi:10.1029/2001gl013173

Observational evidence for the role of denitrification in Arctic stratospheric ozone loss

2001· article· en· W2000438450 on OpenAlexaff
R. S. Gao, Erik Richard, Peter Popp, G. C. Toon, D. F. Hurst, Paul A. Newman, J. C. Holecek, M. J. Northway, D. W. Fahey, M. Y. Danilin, B. Sen, K. Aikin, P. A. Romashkin, J. W. Elkins, Christopher R. Webster, S. Schauffler, Jeffery B. Greenblatt, C. T. McElroy, Leslie R. Lait, T. P. Bui, Darrel Baumgardner

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenitrificationStratosphereEnvironmental scienceOzoneAtmospheric sciencesArcticClimatologyOzone depletionPolar vortexOzone layerMeteorologyOceanographyChemistryNitrogenGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Severe and extensive denitrification, chlorine activation, and photochemical ozone loss were observed throughout the lower stratosphere in the 1999–2000 Arctic vortex. A large number of air parcels sampled between late February and mid‐March, 2000, were photochemically intercomparable for chemical O3 loss rates. In these air parcels, the temporal evolution of the correlations of O3 with the NOy remaining after denitrification provides strong evidence for the role of NOy in moderating O3 destruction. In 71%‐denitrified air parcels, a chemical O3 destruction rate of 63 ppbv/day was calculated, while in 43%‐denitrified air parcels the destruction rate was only 43 ppbv/day. These observational results show that representative denitrification models will be required for accurate prediction of future Arctic O3 changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations36
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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