MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127838438 · doi:10.1029/2004gl021982

Vertical variation of NLC particle sizes retrieved from Odin/OSIRIS limb scattering observations

2005· article· en· W2127838438 on OpenAlexaff
Christian von Savigny, S. V. Petelina, Bodil Karlsson, E. J. Llewellyn, D. A. Degenstein, N. D. Lloyd, John P. Burrows

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersTekesCentre National d’Etudes Spatiales
KeywordsOsirisSpectrographParticle (ecology)Northern HemisphereRange (aeronautics)Particle-size distributionMie scatteringPhysicsParticle sizeSatelliteAtmospheric sciencesAstrophysicsScatteringComputational physicsOpticsLight scatteringMaterials scienceAstronomySpectral lineGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vertical variation of noctilucent cloud (NLC) particle sizes is derived from limb scattering observations in the UV‐B spectral range performed with the Optical Spectrograph and InfraRed Imager System (OSIRIS) on the Odin satellite. The particle sizes are determined under the assumptions that NLC particles can be treated as Mie particles with a known refractive index, and that their size distribution can be approximated by a log‐normal distribution. A sample data set of 16 bright NLCs observed during the 2003 Northern Hemisphere NLC season and the 2003/2004 Southern Hemisphere NLC season was selected for this study. In almost all the cases the derived NLC particle sizes increase with decreasing altitudes. This is in agreement with the standard assumption of larger particles sedimenting out of the cloud bottom. The derived particle radii are between about 10–50 nm.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations71
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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