Results from the International Halocarbons in Air Comparison Experiment (IHALACE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The International Halocarbons in Air Comparison Experiment (IHALACE) was conducted to document relationships between calibration scales among various laboratories that measure atmospheric greenhouse and ozone depleting gases. This study included trace gases such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), as well as nitrous oxide, methane, sulfur hexafluoride, very short-lived halocompounds, and carbonyl sulfide. Many of these gases are present in the unpolluted atmosphere at pmol mol−1 (parts per trillion) or nmol mol−1 (parts per billion) levels. Six stainless steel cylinders containing natural and modified natural air samples were circulated among 19 laboratories. Results from this experiment reveal relatively good agreement (within a few percent) among commonly used calibration scales. Scale relationships for some gases, such as CFC-12 and CCl4, were found to be consistent with those derived from estimates of global mean mole fractions, while others, such as halon-1211 and CH3Br, revealed discrepancies. The transfer of calibration scales among laboratories was problematic in many cases, meaning that measurements tied to a particular scale may not, in fact, be compatible. Large scale transfer errors were observed for CH3CCl3 (10–100%) and CCl4 (2–30%), while much smaller scale transfer errors (< 1%) were observed for halon-1211, HCFC-22, and HCFC-142b. These results reveal substantial improvements in calibration over previous comparisons. However, there is room for improvement in communication and coordination of calibration activities with respect to the measurement of halogenated and related trace gases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".