MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098781985 · doi:10.1029/2005gl022377

Validation of ACE‐FTS stratospheric ozone profiles against Odin/OSIRIS measurements

2005· article· en· W2098781985 on OpenAlexaff
S. V. Petelina, E. J. Llewellyn, Kaley A. Walker, D. A. Degenstein, C. D. Boone, P. F. Bernath, C. S. Haley, Christian von Savigny, Nicholas Lloyd, R. L. Gattinger

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsirisOzoneStratosphereNorthern HemisphereAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceSpectrographAltitude (triangle)LatitudeOzone layerSatelliteMeteorologyPhysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stratospheric ozone profiles measured by the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE‐FTS) have been extensively compared with the coincident ozone profiles measured by the Optical Spectrograph and InfraRed Imager System (OSIRIS) on Odin. All coincidences took place between January 31 and August 5, 2004, with the majority in the Northern Hemisphere. ACE‐OSIRIS statistical comparisons were performed in the altitude range of 16–32 km where OSIRIS ozone data are in a good agreement, 5–7%, with another satellite and ground‐based instruments. At altitudes 3–5 km above and below the ozone peak, ACE‐FTS and OSIRIS profiles agree to within ∼4–7%, while in the vicinity of the peak the ACE‐FTS profiles are systematically lower than OSIRIS profiles by about 10%. This result is consistent for all latitudes between 30°S and 82°N.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207