A meteorological overview of the Subsonic Assessment Ozone and Nitrogen Oxide Experiment (SONEX) period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meteorological conditions are described during NASA's Subsonic Assessment (SASS) Ozone and Nitrogen Oxide Experiment (SONEX) that was conducted over the North Atlantic Flight Corridor (NAFC) during October and November 1997 to study the impact of aircraft emissions on atmospheric concentrations of NOx and ozone. The SONEX period exhibited frequent closed cyclones and anticyclones, as well as high‐amplitude troughs and ridges. These flow patterns often caused aircraft exhaust from the NAFC to follow broad looping north‐south trajectories, instead of more easterly routes that would have occurred if the flow had been more zonal. Mean meteorological conditions during SONEX include a pronounced long wave trough over the East Coast of the United States, as well as weaker low pressure over middle‐latitude portions of the Atlantic Ocean. Conversely, a well‐developed ridge was apparent over the North Atlantic near Iceland. Cloudiness exceeded climatology off the East Coast and the subtropical North Atlantic, with abundant lightning in these regions. There was less than average cloud cover over the middle latitudes between Newfoundland and central Europe. The tropopause was higher than climatology over much of the SONEX region, and the jet stream was located north of its typical position. These circulation features during SONEX are consistent with typical year‐to‐year variations. Meteorological conditions during individual SONEX flights also are described. Upper tropospheric flow patterns, 5‐day backward trajectories from the flight tracks, tropopause heights, lightning data, and differential absorption lidar ozone imagery are employed. Effects of aircraft were observed on numerous flights. Stratospheric conditions were encountered during many flights, sometimes because the DC‐8 passed through a tropopause fold. SONEX flight tracks frequently were downwind of regions of lightning, especially during flights from Bangor and the Azores. Finally, trajectories indicated that continental pollution signatures observed during some flights had originated over the United States.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".