MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155364327 · doi:10.1029/2006gl027687

Denitrification in the Arctic winter 2004/2005: Observations from ACE‐FTS

2006· article· en· W2155364327 on OpenAlexaff
J. J. Jin, K. Semeniuk, G. L. Manney, A. I. Jonsson, S. R. Beagley, J. C. McConnell, C. P. Rinsland, C. D. Boone, Kaley A. Walker, P. F. Bernath

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenitrificationTRACERArcticAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental sciencePolar vortexMethaneVortexStratosphereThe arcticPolarBreakupClimatologyNitrogenOceanographyMeteorologyGeologyChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arctic denitrification in the winter 2004/2005 is analyzed using measurements from the satellite instrument ACE‐FTS. Two methods based on changes in the correlations of odd nitrogen (NOy) versus methane and versus an artificial long‐lived tracer are employed. The observations show that significant denitrification occurred in the region 15 km–20 km and that it was spatially inhomogeneous within the polar vortex. Before the vortex breakup in mid‐March 2005 a maximum denitrification of 8 ± 0.8 ppbv, accounting for a relative reduction of over 50%, was observed at ∼450 K (∼17 km) using both methods. When averaged over the polar vortex for the first half of March, the denitrification at this level was about 4.4 ppbv and 5.0 ppbv from the artificial tracer method and the correlation method, respectively.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207