MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168445329 · doi:10.1029/2004gl022003

Stratospheric effects of energetic particle precipitation in 2003–2004

2005· article· en· W2168445329 on OpenAlexaff
C. E. Randall, V. Lynn Harvey, G. L. Manney, Yvan Orsolini, M. Codrescu, Christopher E. Sioris, S. Brohede, C. S. Haley, L. L. Gordley, J. M. Zawodny, James M. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorthern HemisphereStratosphereAtmospheric sciencesPrecipitationPolar vortexEnvironmental scienceContext (archaeology)Atmosphere (unit)LatitudeClimatologyStormHigh latitudeMeteorologyGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Upper stratospheric enhancements in NOx (NO and NO2) were observed at high northern latitudes from March through at least July of 2004. Multi‐satellite data analysis is used to examine the temporal evolution of the enhancements, to place them in historical context, and to investigate their origin. The enhancements were a factor of 4 higher than nominal at some locations, and are unprecedented in the northern hemisphere since at least 1985. They were accompanied by reductions in O3 of more than 60% in some cases. The analysis suggests that energetic particle precipitation led to substantial NOx production in the upper atmosphere beginning with the remarkable solar storms in late October 2003 and possibly persisting through January. Downward transport of the excess NOx, facilitated by unique meteorological conditions in 2004 that led to an unusually strong upper stratospheric vortex from late January through March, caused the enhancements.

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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations310
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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