MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluation of calibrations for limb scattering sensors

2020· article· en· W3087516917 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
N. A. Kramarova, P. K. Bhartia, Glen Jaross, Zhong‐Qiang Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOzoneEnvironmental scienceSatelliteTropopauseMicrowave Limb SounderStratosphereAtmospheric sciencesOn boardRemote sensingLatitudeOzone layerSCIAMACHYHigh latitudeOzone depletionMeteorologyTroposphereGeologyGeographyGeodesyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite represents a new generation of the US ozone measuring instruments aimed to monitor the ozone recovery associated to the reduction in levels of man-made ozone depleting substances regulated by the Montreal protocol. The first OMPS was launched on board of the Suomi NPP satellite in October 2011. The Limb Profiler is a part of the OMPS instrumental suite, and it collects solar radiances scattered from the atmospheric limb in the UV and VIS spectral ranges. The next OMPS Limb Profiler is scheduled to launch in 2022 on board of NASA/NOAA JPSS-2 mission. These limb scattering measurements allow to retrieve vertical ozone profiles from the tropopause up to the mesosphere with a high vertical resolution (~2 km). The expected ozone recovery is almost three times slower than the ozone loss observed in 1980s and 1990s. To detect such small trends in ozone concentration, the instrument calibrations should be extremely accurate. Comparisons of ozone retrievals from OMPS LP with the correlative satellite measurements from Aura MLS and ISS SAGE III revealed that OMPS LP retrievals accurately characterize the vertical ozone distribution in different atmospheric regions which are most sensitive to changes in the stratospheric composition and dynamics. Between 18 and 42 km the mean differences between LP and correlative measurements are within ±10%, except for the northern high latitudes where between 20 and 32 km biases exceed 10% due to the measurement errors. We also found a small positive drift of ~0.5%/yr against MLS with a pattern that is consistent with the ~150-meter drift (over 7 years) in sensor pointing detected by one of our altitude resolving methods. The spatial patterns in the ozone biases and drifts suggest that remaining errors in the LP ozone retrievals are due to errors in altitude registration and instrument calibrations. We present a study where we evaluate calibrations of the OMPS LP by converting ozone differences between OMPS LP and Aura MLS into differences in radiances. Then these radiance differences are compared with the LP measured radiances to determine errors in OMPS LP calibrations. Since the OMPS LP has three slits, some of the errors, like a drift in the altitude registration, should be common across all three slits, but other errors will be unique for each slit, helping to isolate different sources of errors. This approach can be extended to earlier ESA’s limb scattering missions, like SCIAMACHY and OSIRIS, since MLS has long overlap with the ENVISAT and Odin missions.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.270
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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate→French-language works237,207→