Application of OMI, SCIAMACHY, and GOME‐2 satellite SO<sub>2</sub> retrievals for detection of large emission sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Retrievals of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from space‐based spectrometers are in a relatively early stage of development. Factors such as interference between ozone and SO2 in the retrieval algorithms often lead to errors in the retrieved values. Measurements from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI), Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography (SCIAMACHY), and Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment‐2 (GOME‐2) satellite sensors, averaged over a period of several years, were used to identify locations with elevated SO2 values and estimate their emission levels. About 30 such locations, detectable by all three sensors and linked to volcanic and anthropogenic sources, were found after applying low and high spatial frequency filtration designed to reduce noise and bias and to enhance weak signals to SO2 data from each instrument. Quantitatively, the mean amount of SO2 in the vicinity of the sources, estimated from the three instruments, is in general agreement. However, its better spatial resolution makes it possible for OMI to detect smaller sources and with additional detail as compared to the other two instruments. Over some regions of China, SCIAMACHY and GOME‐2 data show mean SO2 values that are almost 1.5 times higher than those from OMI, but the suggested spatial filtration technique largely reconciles these differences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".