MAX-DOAS formaldehyde slant column measurements during CINDI: intercomparison and analysis improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We present intercomparison results for formaldehyde (HCHO) slant column measurements performed during the Cabauw Intercomparison campaign of Nitrogen Dioxide measuring Instruments (CINDI) that took place in Cabauw, the Netherlands, in summer 2009. During two months, nine atmospheric research groups simultaneously operated MAX-DOAS (MultiAXis Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy) instruments of various designs to record UV-visible spectra of scattered sunlight at different elevation angles that were analysed using common retrieval settings. The resulting HCHO data set was found to be highly consistent, the mean difference between instruments generally not exceeding 15% or 7.5 × 1015 molec cm−2, for all viewing elevation angles. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis was performed to investigate the uncertainties in the HCHO slant column retrieval when varying key input parameters such as the molecular absorption cross sections, correction terms for the Ring effect or the width and position of the fitting interval. This study led to the identification of potentially important sources of errors associated with cross-correlation effects involving the Ring effect, O4, HCHO and BrO cross sections and the DOAS closure polynomial. As a result, a set of updated recommendations was formulated for HCHO slant column retrieval in the 336.5–359 nm wavelength range. To conclude, an error budget is proposed which distinguishes between systematic and random uncertainties. The total systematic error is estimated to be of the order of 20% and is dominated by uncertainties in absorption cross sections and related spectral cross-correlation effects. For a typical integration time of one minute, random uncertainties range between 5 and 30%, depending on the noise level of individual instruments.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".