MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054528025 · doi:10.1139/p07-040

An update on the hydroxyl airglow temperature record from the Auroral Station in Adventdalen, Svalbard (1980–2005)

2007· article· en· W2054528025 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. E. Dyrland, F. Sigernes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesopauseAirglowAtmospheric sciencesPhysicsRotational temperatureClimatologyIonosphereEnvironmental scienceDiurnal temperature variationThermosphereMesosphereSpectral lineGeologyAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on the daily mesospheric winter temperature series derived from ground-based spectral measurements of the hydroxyl airglow layer from the Auroral Station in Adventdalen near Longyearbyen, Svalbard (78°N, 15°E). Temperature estimates from the four latest seasons (2001–2002 to 2004–2005) have been added to the series reported by Sigernes et al. J. Geophys. Res. 108(A9), 1342 (2003). Lomb–Scargle periodogram analyses were performed on both hourly and daily average temperatures to look for significant periods. From the daily means, ∼24 and ∼26 d oscillations that are consistent with a solar rotation modulation of the atmosphere were identified. Analyses of the hourly averaged data did not reveal any considerable diurnal and semidiurnal periods in the temperatures. The 2003–2004 mesopause winter was one of the warmest reported over Svalbard during the last 25 years. It is common to observe within a few days temperature fluctuations in the range 20–40 K. Some years show far less variation than others. The overall daily average winter temperature is 209 K. The annual mean winter temperatures show a slightly positive temperature trend (+0.2 ± 0.1 K/year), on the verge of being a statistically significant change in the winter mesospheric temperatures over Svalbard.PACS Nos.: 92.60.hc, 07.20.Dt, 93.30.Sq, 92.60.hw

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207