MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2141970051 · doi:10.1029/2006jd008178

Recalculation of 11‐year total ozone of Brewer spectrophotometer 115

2007· article· en· W2141970051 on OpenAlexaff
K. S. Lam, Vladimir Savastiouk, W.Y. Fung, Tak-Yi Chan, Kara D. Lamb

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsInternational Medias Data Services (Canada)
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsTotal Ozone Mapping SpectrometerOzoneEnvironmental scienceSatelliteAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyClimatologyOzone layerPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ground‐based total ozone (O3) has been measured by Brewer 115 at Hong Kong (Cape D'Aguilar, 22°13′N, 114°15′E, 64 m above mean sea level). Long‐term observations between 1995 and 2005 show that the sensitivity of outdoor spectrophotometers exhibit long‐term drift. Despite the undesirable sensitivity shift, high‐quality total ozone observations can still be achieved so long as the spectrophotometer is well maintained and calibrated regularly, and appropriate corrections applied to the data. The recalculated ground‐based total ozone also shows good agreement with the satellite (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) version 8) data and Brewer 61 (Chengkung: 23°05′, 121°21′). The procedures and experience of a total ozone trend analysis using multiple linear regression that account for upper level temperatures, QBO, AOD, sun spot activities, and El Niño were reported for future reference. It can be concluded that no ozone depletion was observed over Hong Kong in this time period.

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)0.001
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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate→French-language works237,207→