Validating the reported random errors of ACE‐FTS measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to validate the reported precision of space‐based atmospheric composition measurements, validation studies often focus on measurements in the tropical stratosphere, where natural variability is weak. The scatter in tropical measurements can then be used as an upper limit on single‐profile measurement precision. Here we introduce a method of quantifying the scatter of tropical measurements which aims to minimize the effects of short‐term atmospheric variability while maintaining large enough sample sizes that the results can be taken as representative of the full data set. We apply this technique to measurements of O3, HNO3, CO, H2O, NO, NO2, N2O, CH4, CCl2F2, and CCl3F produced by the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment–Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE‐FTS). Tropical scatter in the ACE‐FTS retrievals is found to be consistent with the reported random errors (RREs) for H2O and CO at altitudes above 20 km, validating the RREs for these measurements. Tropical scatter in measurements of NO, NO2, CCl2F2, and CCl3F is roughly consistent with the RREs as long as the effect of outliers in the data set is reduced through the use of robust statistics. The scatter in measurements of O3, HNO3, CH4, and N2O in the stratosphere, while larger than the RREs, is shown to be consistent with the variability simulated in the Canadian Middle Atmosphere Model. This result implies that, for these species, stratospheric measurement scatter is dominated by natural variability, not random error, which provides added confidence in the scientific value of single‐profile measurements.
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".