Assessment of the performance of ECC‐ozonesondes under quasi‐flight conditions in the environmental simulation chamber: Insights from the Juelich Ozone Sonde Intercomparison Experiment (JOSIE)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1996, quality assurance experiments of electrochemical concentration cell (ECC) ozonesondes of two different model types (SPC‐6A and ENSCI‐Z) have been conducted in the environmental simulation facility at the Research Centre Juelich within the framework of the Juelich Ozone Sonde Intercomparison Experiment (JOSIE). The experiments have shown that the performance characteristics of the two ECC‐sonde types can be significantly different, even when operated under the same conditions. Particularly above 20 km the ENSCI‐Z sonde tends to measure 5–10% more ozone than the SPC‐6A sonde. Below 20 km the differences are 5% or less, but appear to show some differences with year of manufacture. There is a significant difference in the ozone readings when sondes of the same type are operated with different cathode sensing solutions. Testing the most commonly used sensing solutions showed that for each ECC‐manufacturer type the use of 1.0% KI and full buffer gives 5% larger ozone values compared with the use of 0.5% KI and half buffer, and as much as 10% larger values compared with 2.0% KI and no buffer. For ozone sounding stations performing long term measurements this means that changing the sensing solution type or ECC‐sonde type can easily introduce a change of ±5% or more in their records, affecting determination of ozone trends. Standardization of operating procedures for ECC‐sondes yields a precision better than ±(3–5)% and an accuracy of about ±(5–10)% up to 30 km altitude.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it