Comparison of profile total ozone from SBUV (v8.6) with GOME-type and ground-based total ozone for a 16-year period (1996 to 2011)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This paper describes the comparison of the variability of total column ozone inferred from the three independent multi-year data records, namely, (i) Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet Instrument (SBUV) v8.6 profile total ozone, (ii) GTO (GOME-type total ozone), and (iii) ground-based total ozone data records covering the 16-year overlap period (March 1996 through June 2011). Analyses are conducted based on area-weighted zonal means for 0–30° S, 0–30° N, 50–30° S, and 30–60° N. It has been found that, on average, the differences in monthly zonal mean total ozone vary between −0.3 and 0.8 % and are well within 1%. For GTO minus SBUV, the standard deviations and ranges (maximum minus minimum) of the differences regarding monthly zonal mean total ozone vary between 0.6–0.7% and 2.8–3.8% respectively, depending on the latitude band. The corresponding standard deviations and ranges regarding the differences in monthly zonal mean anomalies show values between 0.4–0.6% and 2.2–3.5%. The standard deviations and ranges of the differences ground-based minus SBUV regarding both monthly zonal means and anomalies are larger by a factor of 1.4–2.9 in comparison to GTO minus SBUV. The ground-based zonal means demonstrate larger scattering of monthly data compared to satellite-based records. The differences in the scattering are significantly reduced if seasonal zonal averages are analyzed. The trends of the differences GTO minus SBUV and ground-based minus SBUV are found to vary between −0.04 and 0.1% yr−1 (−0.1 and 0.3 DU yr−1). These negligibly small trends have provided strong evidence that there are no significant time-dependent differences among these multi-year total ozone data records. Analyses of the annual deviations from pre-1980 level indicate that, for the 15-year period of 1996 to 2010, all three data records show a gradual increase at 30–60° N from −5% in 1996 to −2% in 2010. In contrast, at 50–30° S and 30° S–30° N there has been a levelling off in the 15 years after 1996. The deviations inferred from GTO and SBUV show agreement within 1%, but a slight increase has been found in the differences during the period 1996–2010.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".