MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131388407 · doi:10.1029/2002jd002891

International Photolysis Frequency Measurement and Model Intercomparison (IPMMI): Spectral actinic solar flux measurements and modeling

2003· article· en· W2131388407 on OpenAlexaff
Alkiviadis Bais, S. Madronich, J. H. Crawford, Samuel R. Hall, Bernhard Mayer, Michiel van Weele, J. Lenoble, Jack G. Calvert, C. A. Cantrell, R. E. Shetter, Andreas Hofzumahaus, Peter Koepke, P. S. Monks, G. J. Frost, Richard McKenzie, N. A. Krotkov, Arve Kylling, W. H. Swartz, Steven A. Lloyd, Gabriele Pfister, Timothy Martin, E. P. Roeth, E. Griffioen, A. Ruggaber, Maarten Krol, Annette B. Kraus, G. D. Edwards, Martin Mueller, B. L. Lefer, P. V. Johnston, Harry Schwander, D. E. Flittner, B. G. Gardiner, J. D. Barrick, R. Schmitt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine ProgramYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZenithDownwellingIrradianceSolar zenith angleSpectroradiometerSolar irradianceRadiative transferFlux (metallurgy)Atmospheric radiative transfer codesEnvironmental sciencePhysicsSpectral lineAtmospheric sciencesRemote sensingOpticsMaterials scienceGeologyReflectivityAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Photolysis Frequency Measurement and Model Intercomparison (IPMMI) took place in Boulder, Colorado, from 15 to 19 June 1998, aiming to investigate the level of accuracy of photolysis frequency and spectral downwelling actinic flux measurements and to explore the ability of radiative transfer models to reproduce the measurements. During this period, 2 days were selected to compare model calculations with measurements, one cloud‐free and one cloudy. A series of ancillary measurements were also performed and provided parameters required as input to the models. Both measurements and modeling were blind, in the sense that no exchanges of data or calculations were allowed among the participants, and the results were objectively analyzed and compared by two independent referees. The objective of this paper is, first, to present the results of comparisons made between measured and modeled downwelling actinic flux and irradiance spectra and, second, to investigate the reasons for which some of the models or measurements deviate from the others. For clear skies the relative agreement between the 16 models depends strongly on solar zenith angle (SZA) and wavelength as well as on the input parameters used, like the extraterrestrial (ET) solar flux and the absorption cross sections. The majority of the models (11) agreed to within about ±6% for solar zenith angles smaller than ∼60°. The agreement among the measured spectra depends on the optical characteristics of the instruments (e.g., slit function, stray light rejection, and sensitivity). After transforming the measurements to a common spectral resolution, two of the three participating spectroradiometers agree to within ∼10% for wavelengths longer than 310 nm and at all solar zenith angles, while their differences increase when moving to shorter wavelengths. Most models agree well with the measurements (both downwelling actinic flux and global irradiance), especially at local noon, where the agreement is within a few percent. A few models exhibit significant deviations with respect either to wavelength or to solar zenith angle. Models that use the Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science 3 (ATLAS‐3) solar flux agree better with the measured spectra, suggesting that ATLAS‐3 is probably more appropriate for radiative transfer modeling in the ultraviolet.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations60
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207