Accuracy, precision, and temperature dependence of Pandora total ozone measurements estimated from a comparison with the Brewer triad in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This study evaluates the performance of the recently developed Pandora spectrometer by comparing it with the Brewer reference triad. This triad was established by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) in the 1980s and is used to calibrate Brewer instruments around the world, ensuring high-quality total column ozone (TCO) measurements. To reduce stray light, the double Brewer instrument was introduced in 1992, and a new reference triad of double Brewers is also operational at Toronto. Since 2013, ECCC has deployed two Pandora spectrometers co-located with the old and new Brewer triads, making it possible to study the performance of three generations of ozone-monitoring instruments. The statistical analysis of TCO records from these instruments indicates that the random uncertainty for the Brewer is below 0.6 %, while that for the Pandora is below 0.4 %. However, there is a 1 % seasonal difference and a 3 % bias between the standard Pandora and Brewer TCO data, which is related to the temperature dependence and difference in ozone cross sections. A statistical model was developed to remove this seasonal difference and bias. It was based on daily temperature profiles from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts ERA-Interim data over Toronto and TCO from the Brewer reference triads. When the statistical model was used to correct Pandora data, the seasonal difference was reduced to 0.25 % and the bias was reduced to 0.04 %. Pandora instruments were also found to have low air mass dependence up to 81.6° solar zenith angle, comparable to double Brewer instruments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".