MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2308665073

How Certain are We of the Uncertainties in Recent Ozone Profile Trend Assessments of Merged Limbo Ccultation Records? Challenges and Possible Ways Forward

2015· article· en· W2308665073 on OpenAlexaff
Daan Hubert, Jean‐Christopher Lambert, Tijl Verhoelst, J. Granville, Arno Keppens, Jean‐Luc Baray, Ugo Cortesi, D. A. Degenstein, Lucien Froidevaux, Sophie Godin‐Beekmann, K. W. Hoppel, E. Kyrölä, Thierry Leblanc, Günter Lichtenberg, C. Tom McElroy, D. Murtagh, James M. Russell, Jacobo Salvador, H. G. J. Smit, Kerstin Stebel, Wolfgang Steinbrecht, K. B. Strawbridge, René Stübi, D. P. J. Swart, Ghassan Taha, Anne M. Thompson, J. Urban, Anne van Gijsel, Peter von der Gathen, K.A. Walker, Elián Wolfram, J. M. Zawodny, Hideaki Nakane

Bibliographic record

VenueAGU Fall Meeting Abstracts · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)SatelliteOccultationEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyTerm (time)Computer scienceRemote sensingGeographyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most recent assessments of long-term changes in the vertical distribution of ozone (by e.g. WMO and SI2N) rely on data sets that integrate observations by multiple instruments. Several merged satellite ozone profile records have been developed over the past few years; each considers a particular set of instruments and adopts a particular merging strategy. Their intercomparison by Tummon et al. revealed that the current merging schemes are not sufficiently refined to correct for all major differences between the limb/occultation records. This shortcoming introduces uncertainties that need to be known to obtain a sound interpretation of the different satellite-based trend studies. In practice however, producing realistic uncertainty estimates is an intricate task which depends on a sufficiently detailed understanding of the characteristics of each contributing data record and on the subsequent interplay and propagation of these through the merging scheme. Our presentation discusses these challenges in the context of limb/occultation ozone profile records, but they are equally relevant for other instruments and atmospheric measurements. We start by showing how the NDACC and GAW-affiliated ground-based networks of ozonesonde and lidar instruments allowed us to characterize fourteen limb/occultation ozone profile records, together providing a global view over the last three decades. Our prime focus will be on techniques to estimate long-term drift since our results suggest this is the main driver of the major trend differences between the merged data sets. The single-instrument drift estimates are then used for a tentative estimate of the systematic uncertainty in the profile trends from merged data records. We conclude by reflecting on possible further steps needed to improve the merging algorithms and to obtain a better characterization of the uncertainties involved.

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)0.145
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.306
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1450.306
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0180.054
Open science0.0090.009
Research integrity0.0120.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAGU Fall Meeting Abstracts→Same topicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate→French-language works237,207→