MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127656662 · doi:10.1029/2020gl091911

Arctic Ozone Depletion in 2019/20: Roles of Chemistry, Dynamics and the Montreal Protocol

2021· article· en· W3127656662 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wuhu Feng, Sandip Dhomse, Carlo Arosio, Mark Weber, John P. Burrows, M. L. Santee, Martyn P. Chipperfield

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsOzone depletionOzoneOzone layerMontreal ProtocolPolar vortexAtmospheric sciencesChemical transport modelArcticPolarStratosphereBromineClimatologyEnvironmental scienceChlorineMeteorologyChemistryOceanographyGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We use a three‐dimensional chemical transport model and satellite observations to investigate Arctic ozone depletion in winter/spring 2019/20 and compare with earlier years. Persistently, low temperatures caused extensive chlorine activation through to March. March‐mean polar‐cap‐mean modeled chemical column ozone loss reached 78 DU (local maximum loss of ∼108 DU in the vortex), similar to that in 2011. However, weak dynamical replenishment of only 59 DU from December to March was key to producing very low (<220 DU) column ozone values. The only other winter to exhibit such weak transport in the past 20 years was 2010/11, so this process is fundamental to causing such low ozone values. A model simulation with peak observed stratospheric total chlorine and bromine loading (from the mid‐1990s) shows that gradual recovery of the ozone layer over the past 2 decades ameliorated the polar cap ozone depletion in March 2020 by ∼20 DU.

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)0.000
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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations103
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207