Fine‐scale comparison of TOMS total ozone data with model analysis of an intense Midwestern cyclone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High‐resolution (∼40 km) along‐track total column ozone data from the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) instrument are compared with a high‐resolution mesoscale numerical model analysis of an intense cyclone in the Midwestern United States. Total ozone increased by ∼100 DU (nearly 38%) as the TOMS instrument passed over the associated tropopause fold region. Complex structure is seen in the meteorological fields and compares well with the total ozone observations. Ozone data support the meteorological analysis showing that stratospheric descent was confined to levels above ∼600 hPa; significant positive potential vorticity at lower levels is attributable to diabatic processes. Likewise, meteorological fields show that two pronounced ozone streamers extending north and northeastward into Canada at high levels are not bands of stratospheric air feeding into the cyclone; one is a channel of exhaust downstream from the system, and the other apparently previously connected the main cyclonic circulation to a southward intrusion of polar stratospheric air and advected eastward as the cut‐off cyclone evolved. Good agreement between small‐scale features in the model output and total ozone data underscores the latter's potential usefulness in diagnosing upper‐tropospheric/lower‐stratospheric dynamics and kinematics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".