Atmospheric comparison of electrochemical cell ozonesondes from different manufacturers, and with different cathode solution strengths: The Balloon Experiment on Standards for Ozonesondes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A balloon flight to compare 18 ozonesondes with an ozone photometer and with ozone column measurements from Dobson and Brewer spectrophotometers was completed in April 2004. The core experiment consisted of 12 electrochemical concentration cell ozonesondes, 6 from Science Pump Corporation (SP) and 6 from ENSCI Corporation (ES), prepared with cathode solution concentrations of 0.5% KI (half buffer) and 1.0% KI (full buffer). Auxiliary ozonesondes consisted of two electrochemical concentration cell sondes with 2.0% KI (no buffer), two reconditioned sondes, and two Japanese‐KC96 sondes. Precision of each group of similarly prepared ozonesondes was <2–3%. The six ozonesondes prepared according to the manufacturer's recommendations (SP, 1.0% KI, ES 0.5% KI) overestimated the photometer measurements by 5–10% in the stratosphere, but provided ozone columns in good agreement with the ground‐based spectrophotometer measurements. This is consistent with the difference (∼5%) in ozone photometer and column measurements observed during the experiment. Using cathode cell concentrations of 1.0% KI for ES sondes caused overestimates of the photometer by 10–15% and of ozone column by 5–10%. In contrast, 0.5% KI in SP sondes led to good agreement with the photometer, but underestimates of ozone column. The KC96 sondes underestimated the photometer measurements by about 5–15% at air pressures above 30 hPa. Agreement was within 5% at lower pressures. Diluting the solution concentration and the buffers from 1.0% to 0.5% KI causes an approximately linear pressure‐dependent decrease in ozone for both SP and ES sondes, ratio (0.5 KI/1.0 KI) = 0.9 + 0.024 * log10(Pressure).
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".