MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004974616 · doi:10.1029/2007jd008814

Global observations of HNO<sub>3</sub> from the High Resolution Dynamics Limb Sounder (HIRDLS): First results

2008· article· en· W2004974616 on OpenAlexafffund
Douglas E. Kinnison, J. C. Gille, J. J. Barnett, C. E. Randall, V. Lynn Harvey, A. Lambert, R. Khosravi, Michael J. Alexander, P. F. Bernath, C. D. Boone, C. Cavanaugh, M. T. Coffey, Cheryl Craig, V. Dean, T. Eden, David R. Ellis, D. W. Fahey, Gene Francis, Chris Halvorson, James W. Hannigan, C. Hartsough, C. L. Hepplewhite, Charles Krinsky, H. Lee, B. Mankin, T. P. Marcy, S. T. Massie, Bruno Nardi, D. Packman, Peter Popp, M. L. Santee, V. A. Yudin, Kaley A. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsHigh resolutionGeologyRemote sensingMicrowave Limb SounderEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesStratosphere

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the first evaluation of the HNO 3 data product (version 2.04.09) from the High Resolution Dynamics Limb Sounder (HIRDLS) on the Earth Observing System (EOS) Aura satellite. The HIRDLS instrument obtains between 5000 and 7000 HNO 3 profiles per day. HIRDLS HNO 3 data are generally good over the latitude range of 64°S to 80°N and pressure range 100 to 10 hPa, with some profiles, depending on latitude, having useful information between 100 to 161 hPa. The individual profile “measured” precision is between 10 and 15%, but can be much larger if the HNO 3 abundance is low or outside the 100 hPa to 10 hPa range. Global results are compared with the HNO 3 observations from version 2.2 of the EOS Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS), and it is found that large‐scale features are consistent between the two instruments. HIRDLS HNO 3 is biased 0–20% low relative to Aura MLS in the mid‐to‐high latitudes and biased high in the tropical stratosphere. HIRDLS HNO 3 is also compared with Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE‐FTS). In these mostly high‐latitude comparisons the HIRDLS HNO 3 data are biased 10–30% low, depending on altitude. Finally, the HIRDLS HNO 3 is compared to in situ data taken by the NOAA Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometer (CIMS) instrument flown during the 2005 NASA Houston Aura Validation Experiment (AVE) and the ability of HIRDLS to measure HNO 3 in the UTLS region is examined.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.271
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 teacher head, 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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207