MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132099862 · doi:10.1139/p06-091

Calibration of the Purple Crow Lidar vibrational Raman water-vapour mixing ratio and temperature measurements

2007· article· en· W2132099862 on OpenAlexaffvenue
P. S. Argall, R. J. Sica, C R Bryant, Marcos Algara-Siller, Heather Schijns

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiosondeCalibrationWater vaporMixing ratioRaman spectroscopyLidarAltitude (triangle)StratospherePhysicsMixing (physics)Atmospheric sciencesRemote sensingAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Environmental scienceMeteorologyOpticsChemistryGeologyEnvironmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purple Crow Lidar (PCL) measurements of the vibrational Raman-shifted backscatter from water vapour and nitrogen molecules allows height profiles of the water-vapour mixing ratio to be measured from 500 m up into the lower stratosphere. In addition, the Raman nitrogen measurements allow the determination of temperature profiles from about 10 to 40 km altitude. However, external calibration of these measurements is necessary to compensate for instrumental effects, uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant molecular cross sections, and atmospheric transmission. A comparison of the PCL-derived water-vapour concentration and temperature profiles with routine radiosonde measurements from Detroit and Buffalo on 37 and 141 nights, respectively, was undertaken to provide this calibration. The calibration is then applied to the measurements and monthly mean-temperature and water-vapour profiles are determined.PACS Nos.: 42.68.Wt, 42.79.Qx

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207