The Cabauw Intercomparison campaign for Nitrogen Dioxide measuring Instruments (CINDI): design, execution, and early results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. From June to July 2009 more than thirty different in-situ and remote sensing instruments from all over the world participated in the Cabauw Intercomparison campaign for Nitrogen Dioxide measuring Instruments (CINDI). The campaign took place at KNMI's Cabauw Experimental Site for Atmospheric Research (CESAR) in the Netherlands. Its main objectives were to determine the accuracy of state-of-the-art ground-based measurement techniques for the detection of atmospheric nitrogen dioxide (both in-situ and remote sensing), and to investigate their usability in satellite data validation. The expected outcomes are recommendations regarding the operation and calibration of such instruments, retrieval settings, and observation strategies for the use in ground-based networks for air quality monitoring and satellite data validation. Twenty-four optical spectrometers participated in the campaign, of which twenty-one had the capability to scan different elevation angles consecutively, the so-called Multi-axis DOAS systems, thereby collecting vertical profile information, in particular for nitrogen dioxide and aerosol. Various in-situ samplers and lidar instruments simultaneously characterized the variability of atmospheric trace gases and the physical properties of aerosol particles. A large data set of continuous measurements of these atmospheric constituents has been collected under various meteorological conditions and air pollution levels. Together with the permanent measurement capability at the CESAR site characterizing the meteorological state of the atmosphere, the CINDI campaign provided a comprehensive observational data set of atmospheric constituents in a highly polluted region of the world during summertime. First detailed comparisons performed with the CINDI data show that slant column measurements of NO2, O4 and HCHO with MAX-DOAS agree within 5 to 15%, vertical profiles of NO2 derived from several independent instruments agree within 25% of one another, and MAX-DOAS aerosol optical thickness agrees within 20–30% with AERONET data. For the in-situ NO2 instrument using a molybdenum converter, a bias was found as large as 5 ppbv during day time, when compared to the other in-situ instruments using photolytic converters.
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 | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".