MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055726461 · doi:10.1139/p07-118

Intercomparison of Odin/SMR ozone measurements with MIPAS and balloon sonde data

2007· article· en· W2055726461 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrew Jones, D. Murtagh, J. Urban, Patrick Eriksson, J. D. Rösevall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChalmers Tekniska Högskola
KeywordsStratosphereOzoneLatitudeRadiometerOzone layerAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyPhysicsClimatologyAstronomyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sub-Millimetre Radiometer (SMR) on board Odin measures various important atmospheric species, including stratospheric ozone. In this study, we compare the three versions (v1.2, v2.0, and v2.1) of level 2 Odin/SMR global stratospheric ozone data to coincident level 2 MIPAS V4.61 and balloon sonde stratospheric ozone data during 2003. The most current product from Odin/SMR (at time of writing), the v2.1, showed the smallest systematic differences when compared to coincident MIPAS and sonde data. Between 17 and 55 km, v2.1 values agreed with MIPAS within 10% (a maximum of 0.42 ppmv), while comparisons to sonde measurements showed an agreement of typically 5–10% between 22 and 35 km (less than 0.5 ppmv below 33 km). Tropical latitudes below 35 km presented the largest absolute systematic differences between v2.1 and sonde coincidences, where Odin/SMR was systematically lower by ~0.9 (more than 10% difference) at approximately 30 km. Comparisons concerning the previous two Odin/SMR versions showed much larger systematic differences, especially at the higher and lower stratospheric altitudes. The main conclusion here is that we suggest that v2.1 of Odin/SMR ozone data should be used for scientific studies. PACS Nos.: 92.60.hd, 95.75.Rs, 95.85.Fm

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations33
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207