MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035755681 · doi:10.1029/2012jd017689

Validation of upper mesospheric and lower thermospheric temperatures measured by the Solar Occultation for Ice Experiment

2012· article· en· W2035755681 on OpenAlexaff
M. H. Stevens, Lance E. Deaver, Mark E. Hervig, James M. Russell, D. E. Siskind, Patrick E. Sheese, E. J. Llewellyn, R. L. Gattinger, Josef Höffner, B. T. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsMesosphereAeronomyThermosphereOccultationAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceMesopauseAltitude (triangle)Atmosphere (unit)AirglowPolarPolar nightSatelliteMeteorologyPhysicsIonosphereStratosphereAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temperature observations in the polar mesosphere and lower thermosphere are critical for studies of polar mesospheric cloud (PMC) formation and variability. The Solar Occultation for Ice Experiment (SOFIE) on NASA's Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere (AIM) satellite has been measuring temperatures in the polar atmosphere nearly continuously since 2007. We herein present an improved SOFIE temperature data set and validate it against a variety of satellite and ground‐based observations. We find that when taking all comparisons together, SOFIE temperatures are in agreement with independent observations to within reported systematic uncertainties from 15 to 88 km altitude. Between 88 and 95 km SOFIE temperatures have a warm bias that peaks between 10 and 15 K in the Arctic summer and 20–30 K in the Antarctic summer. Much of the warm bias is likely related to uncertainties in prescribed atomic oxygen densities that are required for the SOFIE temperature retrieval.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations40
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207