MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165236987 · doi:10.3390/atmos12060680

Line-of-Sight Winds and Doppler Effect Smearing in ACE-FTS Solar Occultation Measurements

2021· article· en· W3165236987 on OpenAlexafffund
C. D. Boone, J. Steffen, Jeff Crouse, P. F. Bernath

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmosphere · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsOccultationDoppler effectLine-of-sightAtmosphere (unit)SatelliteMixing ratioEnvironmental scienceLine (geometry)Remote sensingPhysicsAtmospheric sciencesOpticsGeologyMeteorologyAstrophysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Line-of-sight wind profiles are derived from Doppler shifts in infrared solar occultation measurements from the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier transform spectrometers (ACE-FTS), the primary instrument on SCISAT, a satellite-based mission for monitoring the Earth’s atmosphere. Comparisons suggest a possible eastward bias from 20 m/s to 30 m/s in ACE-FTS results above 80 km relative to some datasets but no persistent bias relative to other datasets. For instruments operating in a limb geometry, looking through a wide range of altitudes, smearing of the Doppler effect along the line of sight can impact the measured signal, particularly for saturated absorption lines. Implications of Doppler effect smearing are investigated for forward model calculations and volume mixing ratio retrievals. Effects are generally small enough to be safely ignored, except for molecules having a large overhang in their volume mixing ratio profile, such as carbon monoxide.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmosphereSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207