MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115879028 · doi:10.5194/acp-7-1809-2007

Comparison of box-air-mass-factors and radiances for Multiple-Axis Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy (MAX-DOAS) geometries calculated from different UV/visible radiative transfer models

2007· article· en· W2115879028 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsDifferential optical absorption spectroscopyRadianceRadiative transferAerosolAir mass (solar energy)Remote sensingOptical depthSatelliteAbsorption (acoustics)Environmental scienceAtmospheric opticsAtmospheric radiative transfer codesOpticsMeteorologyPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The results of a comparison exercise of radiative transfer models (RTM) of various international research groups for Multiple AXis Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy (MAX-DOAS) viewing geometry are presented. Besides the assessment of the agreement between the different models, a second focus of the comparison was the systematic investigation of the sensitivity of the MAX-DOAS technique under various viewing geometries and aerosol conditions. In contrast to previous comparison exercises, box-air-mass-factors (box-AMFs) for different atmospheric height layers were modelled, which describe the sensitivity of the measurements as a function of altitude. In addition, radiances were calculated allowing the identification of potential errors, which might be overlooked if only AMFs are compared. Accurate modelling of radiances is also a prerequisite for the correct interpretation of satellite observations, for which the received radiance can strongly vary across the large ground pixels, and might be also important for the retrieval of aerosol properties as a future application of MAX-DOAS. The comparison exercises included different wavelengths and atmospheric scenarios (with and without aerosols). The strong and systematic influence of aerosol scattering indicates that from MAX-DOAS observations also information on atmospheric aerosols can be retrieved. During the various iterations of the exercises, the results from all models showed a substantial convergence, and the final data sets agreed for most cases within about 5%. Larger deviations were found for cases with low atmospheric optical depth, for which the photon path lengths along the line of sight of the instrument can become very large. The differences occurred between models including full spherical geometry and those using only plane parallel approximation indicating that the correct treatment of the Earth's sphericity becomes indispensable. The modelled box-AMFs constitute an universal data base for the calculation of arbitrary (total) AMFs by simple convolution with a given trace gas concentration profile. Together with the modelled radiances and the specified settings for the various exercises, they can serve as test cases for future RTM developments.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.230 · 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