MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2932682846 · doi:10.1029/2018ea000469

Solar Occultation FTIR Spectrometry at Mars for Trace Gas Detection: A Sensitivity Study

2019· article· en· W2932682846 on OpenAlexafffund
Geoffrey C. Toon, Carl Christian Liebe, B. Nemati, Ian Harris, A. Kleinböhl, Mark Allen, Vicky Hipkin, Jim Drummond, Marc‐André Soucy, Yuk L. Yung, Zhao‐Cheng Zeng, Debra Wunch, P. O. Wennberg

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth and Space Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoABB (Canada)Dalhousie UniversityCanadian Space Agency
FundersCanadian Space AgencyKeck Institute for Space Studies
KeywordsOccultationMars Exploration ProgramTrace gasSpectral resolutionSpectrometerSensitivity (control systems)Remote sensingAtmosphere of MarsNoise (video)PhysicsSpectral lineOpticsEnvironmental scienceGeologyAtmospheric sciencesAstrophysicsAstronomyMartian

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A sensitivity study has been performed to estimate detection limits of various atmospheric trace gases achievable by a Mars‐orbiting solar occultation Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometer. This was accomplished by first computing realistic limb transmittance spectra based on a model (T, P, VMR, and dust profiles) of the Mars atmosphere and adding appropriate noise and systematic errors based on assumed instrument design/configuration/performance. We then performed spectral fits to the resulting synthetic spectra to derive slant column abundances and their uncertainties. A profile retrieval was performed to infer limits of detection. This methodology was applied to a Mars‐orbiting FTIR solar occultation spectrometer covering the 850–4,300 cm −1 spectral region at 0.025‐cm −1 resolution. We conclude that most gases can be retrieved with a single‐occultation sensitivity of 20–100 ppt. But this sensitivity varies considerably with the dust loading, especially for gases whose strongest absorption bands are toward higher wavenumbers where scattering is large. We conclude that for CH 4 , the ν 4 band centered at 1,305 cm −1 , despite being more than 2 times weaker than the ν 3 band centered at 3,015 cm −1 , offers better sensitivity due to its close spectral proximity to the dust extinction minimum. We also conclude that for the purpose of CH 4 detection, a high‐resolution (0.025 cm −1 ) broadband instrument would have a substantial advantage over a medium‐resolution (0.15 cm −1 ) instrument, despite the latter having a much larger signal‐to‐noise ratio.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.192 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth and Space ScienceSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207