MANTRA ‐ A Balloon Mission to Study the Odd‐Nitrogen Budget of the Stratosphere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Middle Atmosphere Nitrogen TRend Assessment (MANTRA) series of high‐altitude balloon flights is being undertaken to investigate changes in the concentrations of northern hemisphere mid‐latitude stratospheric ozone, and of nitrogen and chlorine compounds that play a role in ozone chemistry. Four campaigns have been carried out to date, all from Vanscoy, Saskatchewan, Canada (52°01'N, 107°02'W, 511.0 m). The first MANTRA mission took place in August 1998, with the balloon flight on 24 August 1998 being the first Canadian launch of a large high‐altitude balloon in about fifteen years. The balloon carried a payload of instruments to measure atmospheric composition, and made measurements from a float altitude of 32–38 km for one day. Three of these instruments had been flown on the Stratoprobe flights of the Atmospheric Environment Service (now the Meteorological Service of Canada) in the 1970s and early 1980s, providing a link to historical data predating the onset of mid‐latitude ozone loss. The primary measurements obtained from the balloon‐borne instruments were vertical profiles of ozone, NO2, HNO3, HCl, CFC‐11, CFC‐12, N2O, CH4, temperature, and aerosol backscatter. Total column measurements of ozone, NO2, SO2, and aerosol optical depth were made by three ground‐based spectrometers deployed during the campaign. Regular ozonesonde and radiosonde launches were also conducted during the two weeks prior to the main launch in order to characterize the local atmospheric conditions (winds, pressure, temperature, humidity) in the vicinity of the primary balloon flight. The data have been compared with the Model for Evaluating oZONe Trends (MEZON) chemical transport model, the University of California at Irvine photochemical box model, and the Canadian Middle Atmosphere Model (CMAM) to test our current understanding of model photochemistry and mid‐latitude species correlations. This paper provides an overview of the MANTRA 1998 mission, and serves as an introduction to the accompanying papers in this issue of Atmosphere‐Ocean that describe specific aspects and results of this campaign.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".