MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146714030 · doi:10.5194/acp-6-2355-2006

Partitioning between the inorganic chlorine reservoirs HCl and ClONO <sub>2</sub> during the Arctic winter 2005 from the ACE-FTS

2006· article· en· W2146714030 on OpenAlexafffund
G. Dufour, Ray Nassar, C. D. Boone, R. Skelton, Kaley A. Walker, P. F. Bernath, C. P. Rinsland, K. Semeniuk, J. J. Jin, J. C. McConnell, G. L. Manney

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Space AgencyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCalifornia Institute of TechnologyJet Propulsion LaboratoryNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsChlorineChemistryArcticBox modelThe arcticStratosphereEnvironmental chemistryAtmospheric sciencesOceanographyGeologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. From January to March 2005, the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment high resolution Fourier transform spectrometer (ACE-FTS) on SCISAT-1 measured many of the changes occurring in the Arctic (50–80° N) lower stratosphere under very cold winter conditions. Here we focus on the partitioning between the inorganic chlorine reservoirs HCl and ClONO2 and their activation into ClO. The simultaneous measurement of these species by the ACE-FTS provides the data needed to follow chlorine activation during the Arctic winter and the recovery of the Cl-reservoir species ClONO2 and HCl. The time evolution of HCl, ClONO2 and ClO as well as the partitioning between the two reservoir molecules agrees well with previous observations and with our current understanding of chlorine activation during Arctic winter. The results of a chemical box model are also compared with the ACE-FTS measurements and are generally consistent with the measurements.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations35
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207