MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343724760 · doi:10.5194/amt-9-4029-2016

Proposed standardized definitions for vertical resolution and uncertainty inthe NDACC lidar ozone and temperature algorithms – Part 1: Verticalresolution

2016· article· en· W2343724760 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric measurement techniques · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCalifornia Institute of TechnologyJet Propulsion LaboratoryNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsLidarFilter (signal processing)AlgorithmMathematicsImpulse responseSmoothingHeaviside step functionComputer scienceRemote sensingMathematical analysisStatisticsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A standardized approach for the definition and reporting of vertical resolution of the ozone and temperature lidar profiles contributing to the Network for the Detection for Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC) database is proposed. Two standardized definitions homogeneously and unequivocally describing the impact of vertical filtering are recommended. The first proposed definition is based on the width of the response to a finite-impulse-type perturbation. The response is computed by convolving the filter coefficients with an impulse function, namely, a Kronecker delta function for smoothing filters, and a Heaviside step function for derivative filters. Once the response has been computed, the proposed standardized definition of vertical resolution is given by Δz = δz × HFWHM, where δz is the lidar's sampling resolution and HFWHM is the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the response, measured in sampling intervals. The second proposed definition relates to digital filtering theory. After applying a Laplace transform to a set of filter coefficients, the filter's gain characterizing the effect of the filter on the signal in the frequency domain is computed, from which the cut-off frequency fC, defined as the frequency at which the gain equals 0.5, is computed. Vertical resolution is then defined by Δz = δz∕(2fC). Unlike common practice in the field of spectral analysis, a factor 2fC instead of fC is used here to yield vertical resolution values nearly equal to the values obtained with the impulse response definition using the same filter coefficients. When using either of the proposed definitions, unsmoothed signals yield the best possible vertical resolution Δz = δz (one sampling bin). Numerical tools were developed to support the implementation of these definitions across all NDACC lidar groups. The tools consist of ready-to-use “plug-in” routines written in several programming languages that can be inserted into any lidar data processing software and called each time a filtering operation occurs in the data processing chain. When data processing implies multiple smoothing operations, the filtering information is analytically propagated through the multiple calls to the routines in order for the standardized values of vertical resolution to remain theoretically and numerically exact at the very end of data processing.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.200 · 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