MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2043967043 · doi:10.1029/2005jd006222

Comparison of microphysical modeling of polar stratospheric clouds against balloon‐borne and Improved Limb Atmospheric Spectrometer (ILAS) satellite observations

2006· article· en· W2043967043 on OpenAlexafffund
Xihong Wang, Diane V. Michelangeli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStratosphereAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceSatelliteEffective radiusPolarAerosolRADIUSSpectrometerMeteorologyPhysicsAstrophysicsAstronomyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A size‐segregated stratospheric aerosol model with detailed polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) microphysics has been developed to study the formation and evolution of PSCs. For comparison with satellite and balloon‐borne observations, one‐dimensional simulations have been performed in Esrange/Kiruna (67.93°N, 21.07°E), Sweden during the period of winter 1996/1997. The modeled proportions of PSCs are consistent with the observations of volume, number, size distributions, and extinction coefficients derived from the in situ balloon‐borne optical particle counter and the Improved Limb Atmospheric Spectrometer (ILAS) satellite sensor, demonstrating the capability of the model to capture PSC events. Model simulations successfully reproduce three major PSC events in the period from January to February 1997. The model is able to produce particle size distribution and number densities typical of the field observations in the Arctic stratosphere. Large HNO3‐containing particles with a median radius of 6 μm and number densities in the range of 10−5 to 10−3 cm−3 are predicted to occur over a broad range of altitudes. Model simulations suggest that the homogeneous nucleation mechanism of type Ia PSCs out of type Ib PSCs plays a critical role in the formation of large HNO3‐containing particles. The present model shows good potential for interpreting and validating the balloon‐borne and satellite observations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate→French-language works237,207→