Impact of using different ozone cross sections on ozone profile retrievals from Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment (GOME) ultraviolet measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We investigate the effect of using three different cross section data sets on ozone profile retrievals from Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment (GOME) ultraviolet measurements (289–307 nm, 326–337 nm). These include Bass-Paur, Brion, and GOME flight model cross sections (references below). Using different cross sections can significantly affect the retrievals, by up to 12 Dobson Units (DU, 1 DU=2.69×1016 molecules cm−2) in total column ozone, up to 10 DU in tropospheric column ozone, and up to 100% in retrieved ozone values for individual atmospheric layers. Compared to using the Bass-Paur and GOME flight model cross sections, using the Brion cross sections not only reduces fitting residuals by 15–60% in the Huggins bands, but also improves retrievals, especially in the troposphere, as seen from validation against ozonesonde measurements. Therefore, we recommend using the Brion cross section for ozone profile retrievals from ultraviolet measurements. The total column ozone retrieved using the GOME flight model cross sections is systematically lower, by 7–10 DU, than that retrieved using the Brion and Bass-Paur cross sections and is also systematically lower than Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) observations. This study demonstrates the need for improved ozone cross section measurements in the ultraviolet to improve profile retrievals of this key atmospheric constituent.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".