Airglow imaging of gravity waves: 2. Critical layer filtering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Images of the variations of OH intensities have been recorded by a three‐station network of scanning radiometers in southwestern Ontario during the period from May until September 1998. The ensemble of gravity waves seen in all three instruments is analyzed and observed to have a strong dependence in their propagation direction with the majority of waves seen at each of the three sites having a horizontal wave vector in the northeast direction. In order to understand these results a model of the transmission of gravity waves through the atmosphere was employed. The gravity waves observed by the OH Scanning Radiometers (OHSCRs) are assumed to originate in the troposphere with an isotropic spectrum, meaning that the average wave amplitudes are equal in all directions. The gravity waves propagate upward where they will undergo a selection process owing to the effect of the “background winds.” Using the horizontal winds from the Horizontal Wind Model (HWM‐93), the transmission of gravity waves from a tropospheric source is modeled and shown to be consistent with the observations. The strong zonal winds account for the summer eastward and winter westward propagation, but it is the tidal components of the meridional wind that account for the northward tendency of wave propagation (and the corresponding relative absence of southward propagating waves). In order to further validate the transmission, model winter measurements from the OHSCR data set are examined and shown to be consistent.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".