MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181213281 · doi:10.1562/2005-09-28-ra-700

Simulation of Ozone Depletion Using Ambient Irradiance Supplemented with UV Lamps

2006· article· en· W2181213281 on OpenAlexaffabout
S. B. Diaz, Carolina Camilión, J. Escobar, Guillermo Deferrari, Sébastien Roy, Karine Lacoste, S. Demers, Claude Belzile, Gustavo Ferreyra, Sônia Maria Flores Gianesella, Michel Gosselin, Christian Nozais, Émilien Pelletier, Irene R Schloss, María Vernet

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotochemistry and Photobiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrradianceOzone depletionSunsetNoonEnvironmental scienceOzoneSunriseAtmospheric sciencesMesocosmOzone layerBloomMeteorologyEcosystemBiologyEcologyPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In studies of the biological effects of UV radiation, ozone depletion can be mimicked by performing the study under ambient conditions and adding radiation with UV-B lamps. We evaluated this methodology at three different locations along a latitudinal gradient: Rimouski (Canada), Ubatuba (Brazil) and Ushuaia (Argentina). Experiments of the effect of potential ozone depletion on marine ecosystems were carried out in large outdoor enclosures (mesocosms). In all locations we simulated irradiances corresponding to 60% ozone depletion, which may produce a 130-1900% increase in 305 nm irradiance at noon, depending on site and season. Supplementation with a fixed percentage of ambient irradiance provides a better simulation of irradiance increase due to ozone depletion than supplementation with a fixed irradiance value, particularly near sunrise and sunset or under cloudy skies. Calculations performed for Ushuaia showed that, on very cloudy days, supplementation by the square-wave method may produce unrealistic irradiances. Differences between the spectra of the calculated supplementing irradiance and the lamp for a given site and date will be a function of the time of day and may become more or less pronounced according to the biological weighting function of the effect under study.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhotochemistry and PhotobiologySame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207