MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162456393 · doi:10.1029/2007jd008417

Variability in HDO/H<sub>2</sub>O abundance ratios in the tropical tropopause layer

2007· article· en· W2162456393 on OpenAlexaff
Ray Nassar, P. F. Bernath, C. D. Boone, Andrew Gettelman, Sean D. McLeod, C. P. Rinsland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersScheme for Promotion of Academic and Research Collaboration
KeywordsTroposphereWater vaporAtmospheric sciencesTropopauseStratosphereEnvironmental scienceClimatologySouthern HemisphereTropicsConvectionMeteorologyGeologyPhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dehydration of air in the tropical tropopause layer (TTL) and mechanisms for the entry of water vapor into the stratosphere are investigated by an analysis of ACE‐FTS profiles of temperature, water vapor, and the ratio [HDO]/[H 2 O] expressed in δ D notation. Month‐to‐month comparisons indicate greater seasonal variability than interannual variability between 25°S–25°N, thus comparisons are made between February, April, August, and October averages for the years 2004 and 2005 combined. The data indicate a pattern of seasonal variability which is clearer in the Northern Hemisphere tropics and a relationship between minimum temperature, minimum water vapor, and maximum HDO depletion, which exists beyond the estimated uncertainty in these values. The range of values observed for HDO depletion and comparisons to modeled Rayleigh distillation curves indicate an important contribution from convection in addition to gradual dehydration. Multiple factors including the shape of the δ D profiles suggest that a likely mechanism for the convective influence is the lofting of ice particles in the tropical troposphere.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations65
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207