MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145647360 · doi:10.5194/angeo-25-27-2007

A comparison of Rayleigh and sodium lidar temperature climatologies

2007· article· en· W2145647360 on OpenAlexafffundabout
P. S. Argall, R. J. Sica

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales Geophysicae · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLidarThermosphereAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceClimatologyLatitudeAtmosphere (unit)MesosphereRayleigh scatteringAtmospheric temperatureMeteorologyGeologyStratosphereRemote sensingIonosphereGeographyGeodesyPhysicsGeophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Temperature measurements from the PCL Rayleigh lidar located near London, Canada, taken during the 11 year period from 1994 to 2004 are used to form a temperature climatology of the middle atmosphere. A unique feature of the PCL temperature climatology is that it extends from 35 to 95 km allowing comparison with other Rayleigh lidar climatologies (which typically extend up to about 85 km), as well as with climatologies derived from sodium lidar measurements which extend from 83 to 108 km. The derived temperature climatology is compared to the CIRA-86 climatological model and to other lidar climatologies, both Rayleigh and sodium. The PCL climatology agrees well with the climatologies of other Rayleigh lidars from similar latitudes, and like these other climatologies shows significant differences from the CIRA-86 temperatures in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. Significant disagreement is also found between the PCL climatology and sodium lidar climatologies measured in the central and western United States at similar latitudes, with the PCL climatology consistently 10 to 15 K cooler in the 85 to 90 km region.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations28
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales GeophysicaeSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207