MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211191454 · doi:10.5194/amtd-8-6661-2015

Ground-based assessment of the bias and long-term stability of fourteen limb and occultation ozone profile data records

2015· article· en· W4211191454 on OpenAlexafffund
Daan Hubert, Jean‐Christopher Lambert, Tijl Verhoelst, J. Granville, Arno Keppens, Jean‐Luc Baray, Ugo Cortesi, D. A. Degenstein, L. Froidevaux, Sophie Godin‐Beekmann, K. W. Hoppel, E. Kyrölä, Thierry Leblanc, Günter Lichtenberg, C. T. McElroy, D. Murtagh, Hideaki Nakane, James M. Russell, J. Salvador, H. G. J. Smit, Kerstin Stebel, Wolfgang Steinbrecht, K. B. Strawbridge, René Stübi, D. P. J. Swart, Ghassan Taha, Anne M. Thompson, J. A. E. van Gijsel, Peter von der Gathen, Kaley A. Walker, Elián Wolfram, J. M. Zawodny

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WaterlooEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaYork UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJet Propulsion LaboratoryCanadian Space AgencyNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationBelgian Federal Science Policy OfficeNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsStratopauseOccultationEnvironmental scienceStratosphereSCIAMACHYRadio occultationSatelliteOzoneOzone layerTropopauseAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyTerm (time)LidarTroposphereRemote sensingMesosphereGeographyGlobal Positioning SystemGeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The ozone profile records of a large number of limb and occultation satellite instruments are widely used to address several key questions in ozone research. Further progress in some domains depends on a more detailed understanding of these data sets, especially of their long-term stability and their mutual consistency. To this end, we make a systematic assessment of fourteen limb and occultation sounders that, together, provide more than three decades of global ozone profile measurements. In particular, we consider the latest operational Level-2 records by SAGE II, SAGE III, HALOE, UARS MLS, Aura MLS, POAM II, POAM III, OSIRIS, SMR, GOMOS, MIPAS, SCIAMACHY, ACE-FTS and MAESTRO. Central to our work is a harmonized and robust analysis of the comparisons against the ground-based ozonesonde and stratospheric ozone lidar networks. It allows us to investigate, from the ground up to the stratopause, the following main aspects of data quality: long-term stability, overall bias, and short-term variability, together with their dependence on geophysical parameters and profile representation. In addition, it permits us to quantify the overall consistency between the ozone profilers. Generally, we find that between 20–40 km, the satellite ozone measurement biases are smaller than ±5 %, the short-term variabilities are better than 5–12 % and the drifts are at most ±5 % decade−1 (and ±3 % decade−1 for a few records). The agreement with ground-based data degrades somewhat towards the stratopause and especially towards the tropopause, where natural variability and low ozone abundancies impede a more precise analysis. A few records deviate from the preceding general remarks, in part of the stratosphere; we identify biases of 10 % and more (POAM II and SCIAMACHY), markedly higher single-profile variability (SMR and SCIAMACHY), and significant long-term drifts (SCIAMACHY, OSIRIS, HALOE, and possibly GOMOS and SMR as well). Furthermore, we reflect on the repercussions of our findings for the construction, analysis and interpretation of merged data records. Most notably, the discrepancies between several recent ozone profile trend assessments can be mostly explained by instrumental drift. This clearly demonstrates the need for systematic comprehensive multi-instrument comparison analyses.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207