MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190620470 · doi:10.5194/essd-13-5115-2021

The OH (3-1) nightglow volume emission rate retrieved from OSIRIS measurements: 2001 to 2015

2021· article· en· W3190620470 on OpenAlexaff
Anqi Li, Chris Roth, Adam Bourassa, Douglas A. Degenstein, Kristell Pérot, Ole Martin Christensen, D. Murtagh

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth system science data · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSwedish National Space Agency
KeywordsAirglowThermosphereZenithEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesVolume (thermodynamics)MesosphereOscillation (cell signaling)SatelliteMeteorologyData setSCIAMACHYPhysicsStratosphereIonosphereChemistryMathematicsGeophysicsOpticsAstronomyTroposphereStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The OH airglow has been used to investigate the chemistry and dynamics of the mesosphere and the lower thermosphere (MLT) for a long time. The infrared imager (IRI) aboard the Odin satellite has been recording the night-time 1.53 µm OH (3-1) emission for more than 15 years (2001–2015), and we have recently processed the complete data set. The newly derived data products contain the volume emission rate profiles and the Gaussian-approximated layer height, thickness, peak intensity and zenith intensity, and their corresponding error estimates. In this study, we describe the retrieval steps for these data products. We also provide data screening recommendations. The monthly zonal averages depict the well-known annual oscillation and semi-annual oscillation signatures, which demonstrate the fidelity of the data set (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4746506, Li et al., 2021). The uniqueness of this Odin IRI OH long-term data set makes it valuable for studying various topics, for instance, the sudden stratospheric warming events in the polar regions and solar cycle influences on the MLT.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth system science dataSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207