UV Dosage Levels in Summer: Increased Risk of Ozone Loss from Convectively Injected Water Vapor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water In, Ozone Out The danger of stratospheric ozone loss burst into public awareness in the 1980s, when the Antarctic ozone hole was discovered and described. Since then, the specter of ozone depletion in other locations, notably the Arctic, has been identified. Ozone loss is not confined to high latitudes, however, nor is it only the result of the addition of anthropogenic compounds containing chlorine and bromine in the stratosphere, as Anderson et al. (p. 835 , published online 26 July; see the Perspective by Ravishankara ) now demonstrate. Data from the atmosphere above the continental United States revealed that convective injection of water vapor into the stratosphere affects the free radical chemistry involving the (mostly anthropogenic) chlorine and bromine, thus accelerating ozone loss. This process could become important in the stratospheric ozone budget if the frequency and intensity of these water-injection events, which are most common in the summer, increase as a result of global warming.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".