MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003467344 · doi:10.1029/2005gl023099

Thermal conditions for PMC existence derived from Odin/OSIRIS and TIMED/SABER data

2005· article· en· W2003467344 on OpenAlexaff
S. V. Petelina, D. A. Degenstein, E. J. Llewellyn, N. D. Lloyd, Christopher J. Mertens, M. G. Mlynczak, James M. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersTekesCentre National d’Etudes Spatiales
KeywordsDepth soundingPhysicsBrightnessAtmosphere (unit)SpectrographInfraredAtmospheric sciencesRadiometerRadiometryEnvironmental scienceAstrophysicsGeologyAstronomyMeteorologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study a relationship between Polar Mesospheric Cloud (PMC) brightness and coincident mesospheric Kinetic Temperatures (KT) measured by two satellite instruments, the Optical Spectrograph and Infrared Imager System and Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry respectively. Two fifteen‐day periods in July 2002 and 2003 have been analyzed. For coincidences ≤3 hours and ≤200 km PMCs with a peak at 82–84 km were observed for the mean KT in this height range ≤142 K. Bright PMCs, at least twice brighter than the seasonal mean, were detected only for KT ≤ 134 K. The average KT for PMCs at 80°–82.2°N was lower than that at 60°–75°N by 5–8 K. The average KT coincident with PMCs was 1.4 to 7.9 K lower than that for non‐PMC cases. There was up to 7% of non‐PMC detections for the very low KT, ≤130 K. The total random and systematic uncertainty of this analysis was 9 K.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207