MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020868955 · doi:10.1364/ao.44.005652

Variability of observed low-altitude astronomical refraction (LAAR) from different geographic locations: progress toward a global map of LAAR variability

2005· article· en· W2020868955 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Russell D. Sampson, Edward P. Lozowski, Hans G. Machel

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSunsetRefractionAltitude (triangle)LatitudeStandard deviationGeologyGeodesyAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyPhysicsAstronomyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The variability of the astronomical refraction of the setting Sun as measured from Holetown, Barbados, West Indies, is compared to sunset refraction measured from Edmonton, Alberta, during the same time of year. At about 13 degrees N latitude, Holetown experiences a marine tropical climate, while Edmonton (53 degrees N) has a subarctic continental climate. The 17 sunsets recorded from Holetown between 27 December 2003, and 21 February 2004, and between 25 and 30 December 2004, show a mean astronomical refraction of 0 degrees .475 and standard deviation of 0 degrees .012. The 26 sunsets recorded from Edmonton between 31 December 1992, and 17 February 1993, show a mean astronomical refraction of 0 degrees .699 and standard deviation of 0 degrees .118. The Barbados mean is significantly less than the Edmonton mean, while the variability of the Barbados data is an order of magnitude less than the Edmonton data. The variability of refraction appears to be strongly correlated with the variability in the surface vertical temperature gradient recorded on the same day as the sunset observations. This suggests that mapping of the geographic distribution of low-altitude astronomical refraction variability could be based on climatology of the surface vertical temperature gradient.

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)0.000
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207