MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037023540 · doi:10.1360/tb-2020-0097

The discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole

2020· article· en· W3037023540 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yongyun Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Science Bulletin (Chinese Version) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOzone layerOzone depletionOzoneMontreal ProtocolMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To celebrate its 150 anniversary, Nature collected 10 extraordinary papers published on Naturein November, 2019. One of the papers is on the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole, which was published by three British scientists, Joe C. Farman, Brian G. Gardiner, and Jonathan D. Shanklin, in 1985. They first showed observational evidence that Antarctic stratospheric ozone experienced drastic decrease in the early 1980s, by contrasting to the relative steady state in the 1970s. They also suggested that the ozone hole is due to human-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Nature invited Susan Solomon, who made outstanding contributions to our understanding of the ozone hole, to comment on the paper. She pointed out that “The unexpected discovery of a hole in the atmospheric ozone layer over the Antarctic revolutionized science—and helped to establish one of the most successful global environmental policies of the twentieth century.” The observational evidence by Farman et al. greatly confirmed earlier theoretical works by P. Cruzen, M. Molina, and F. Rowland who first emphasized in the 1970s that anthropogenic emissions of nitrogen oxides and CFCs would damage the ozone layer. Their observational confirmation led to the winning of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry by Cruzen, Molina, and Rowland in 1995. The discovery of the ozone hole also led to great international actions in reducing CFCs emissions and protecting the ozone layer, which is crucially important for screening solar ultraviolet radiation for surface life. A series of conventions has been organized by the United Nations, and the most successful one is the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Montreal Protocol and the succeeding amendments, adjustments, and decisions were subsequently negotiated to control the consumption and production of anthropogenic emissions of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) and some hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Since then, ODSs emissions have been largely reduced and showed rapid decrease since the early 1990s. The global ozone layer and the ozone hole over Antarctic all have showed gradual increasing since the late 1990s. According to predictions of climate-chemistry models, the global total column ozone will return to its 1980 values by 2045 when ODSs decline to very low levels, and the Antarctic ozone hole will recover by 2060. The gradual recovery of the ozone hole, due to reducing anthropogenic emissions, from severe depletion also due to human emissions, is considered a successful story that human can protect their environment through self-efforts. It provides us with the confidence that we are able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to solve the problem of global greenhouse warming. In the present paper, we will first introduce the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole by Farman et al. Then, we introduce the chemical mechanisms of the Chapman and the catalytic reactions that result in the formation of the ozone layer, and how anthropogenic perturbations caused the Antarctic ozone hole. We shall also introduce the actions that was taken by international communities to protect the ozone layer. In the final section, we point out the important implications of the discovery of the ozone hole.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese Science Bulletin (Chinese Version)Same topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207