An observing system simulation experiment to evaluate the scientific merit of wind and ozone measurements from the future SWIFT instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An observing system simulation experiment was performed to assess the impact and scientific merit of SWIFT stratospheric wind and ozone observations. The SWIFT instrument is being considered for launch later this decade, and is expected to provide unprecedented global information on key aspects of the stratosphere, including tropical winds, ozone fluxes and wintertime variability. It was found that SWIFT wind observations will have a significant impact on analyses in the tropical stratosphere (except the lowermost levels), and could have a significant impact in the extratropics when the SWIFT observations are available and the flow regime is changing relatively fast. Results indicate that SWIFT ozone observations will have a significant impact when the vertical gradient of ozone is relatively high. The experiments indicate that SWIFT wind observations would improve the analysis of both tropical wind and wintertime variability. The results of this study strongly indicate a beneficial impact from the proposed SWIFT instrument. © Royal Meteorological Society, 2005. D. R. Jacksons's and R. Swinbank's contributions are Crown copyright.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".