Validation of FORMOSAT-3/COSMIC level 2 "atmPrf" global temperature data in the stratosphere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. GPS radio occultations by Formosa Satellite mission-3/Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (FORMOSAT-3/COSMIC) provide bending angle profiles, which are further processed to give profiles of temperature and water vapour in the lower atmosphere and electron density in the upper atmosphere. The level 2 "atmPrf" (atmospheric profile) product of version 2010.2640 gives temperature from surface to 0.2 hPa (~ 60 km). This is a dry temperature data product that does not include relative humidity in the inversion process and hence is reliable at altitudes < 100 hPa and erroneous at lower altitudes. In the current study we compare the COSMIC "atmPrf" data from December 2010 to November 2011 with other satellite (SABER/TIMED and MLS/Aura) temperatures from 50 to 0.2 hPa, COSMIC "wetPrf" data and reanalysis (NCEP, ERA-Interim and UKMO) outputs at 100, 10, 1 and 0.5 hPa pressure levels. The satellite comparisons show that below 1 hPa the observed median differences are most likely produced due to the biases in the retrievals of SABER and MLS. "atmPrf" and "wetPrf" temperatures compare extremely well in the common altitudes with differences being absolute zero between 200 and 10 hPa. When compared to reanalysis outputs, COSMIC seasonal means match NCEP and ECMWF seasonal mean temperatures very well, especially at 100 and 10 hPa. We conclude from this study that with the COSMIC dry temperature retrievals obtained from radio occultations of GPS, there is a 20 km extension of reliable data in the middle atmosphere. "atmPrf" data are of good quality and provide reliable and unprecedentedly large number of profiles at greater temporal and spatial resolutions for further studies and investigations of the middle atmosphere up to 1 hPa, i.e., approximately up to the stratopause at around 50 km.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".