Validation of the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE) version 2.2 temperature using ground-based and space-borne measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. An ensemble of space-borne and ground-based instruments has been used to evaluate the quality of the version 2.2 temperature retrievals from the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE-FTS). The agreement of ACE-FTS temperatures with other sensors is typically better than 2 K in the stratosphere and upper troposphere and 5 K in the lower mesosphere. There is evidence of a systematic high bias (roughly 3–6 K) in the ACE-FTS temperatures in the mesosphere, and a possible systematic low bias (roughly 2 K) in ACE-FTS temperatures near 23 km. Some ACE-FTS temperature profiles exhibit unphysical oscillations, a problem fixed in preliminary comparisons with temperatures derived using the next version of the ACE-FTS retrieval software. Though these relatively large oscillations in temperature can be on the order of 10 K in the mesosphere, retrieved volume mixing ratio profiles typically vary by less than a percent or so. Statistical comparisons suggest these oscillations occur in about 10% of the retrieved profiles. Analysis from a set of coincident lidar measurements suggests that the random error in ACE-FTS version 2.2 temperatures has a lower limit of about ±2 K.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".