MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531755764 · doi:10.5194/amt-10-1481-2017

Intercomparability of X <sub> CO <sub>2</sub> </sub> and X <sub> CH <sub>4</sub> </sub> from the United States TCCON sites

2017· article· en· W2531755764 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob K. Hedelius, Harrison Parker, Debra Wunch, Coleen M. Roehl, Camille Viatte, Sally Newman, Geoffrey C. Toon, James R. Podolske, Patrick W. Hillyard, Laura T. Iraci, Manvendra K. Dubey, P. O. Wennberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric measurement techniques · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryBiological and Environmental ResearchLaboratory Directed Research and DevelopmentU.S. Geological SurveyNational Centers for Environmental InformationNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationEuropean Centre for Medium-Range Weather ForecastsJet Propulsion LaboratoryDow Chemical CompanyOffice of ScienceNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsStatisticsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MathematicsChemistryPhysicsChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) has become the standard for long-term column-averaged measurements of CO2 and CH4. Here, we use a pair of portable spectrometers to test for intra-network bias among the four currently operating TCCON sites in the United States (US). A previous analytical error analysis has suggested that the maximum 2σ site-to-site relative (absolute) bias of TCCON should be less than 0.2 % (0.8 ppm) in XCO2 and 0.4 % (7 ppb) in XCH4. We find here experimentally that the 95 % confidence intervals for maximum pairwise site-to-site bias among the four US TCCON sites are 0.05–0.14 % for XCO2 and 0.08–0.24 % for XCH4. This is close to the limit of the bias we can detect using this methodology.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.209 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations36
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric measurement techniquesSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207