MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220853914 · doi:10.5194/amt-15-1233-2022

Assessment of the quality of ACE-FTS stratospheric ozone data

2022· article· en· W4220853914 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Patrick E. Sheese, Kaley A. Walker, C. D. Boone, Adam Bourassa, D. A. Degenstein, Lucien Froidevaux, C. T. McElroy, D. Murtagh, James M. Russell, Jiansheng Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric measurement techniques · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanYork UniversityUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Space AgencyTekesEuropean Space AgencyJet Propulsion LaboratoryNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsStratosphereAltitude (triangle)Atmospheric sciencesOzoneAtmospheric soundingEnvironmental scienceSatelliteDepth soundingOzone layerMeteorologyClimatologyPhysicsGeographyMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. For the past 17 years, the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE-FTS) instrument on the Canadian SCISAT satellite has been measuring profiles of atmospheric ozone. The latest operational versions of the level 2 ozone data are versions 3.6 and 4.1. This study characterizes how both products compare with correlative data from other limb-sounding satellite instruments, namely MAESTRO, MLS, OSIRIS, SABER, and SMR. In general, v3.6, with respect to the other instruments, exhibits a smaller bias (which is on the order of ∼ 3 %) in the middle stratosphere than v4.1 (∼ 2 %–9 %); however, the bias exhibited in the v4.1 data tends to be more stable, i.e. not changing significantly over time in any altitude region. In the lower stratosphere, v3.6 has a positive bias of about 3 %–5 % that is stable to within ±1 % per decade, and v4.1 has a bias on the order of −1 % to +5 % and is also stable to within ±1 % per decade. In the middle stratosphere, v3.6 has a positive bias of ∼ 3 % with a significant negative drift on the order of 0.5 %–2.5 % per decade, and v4.1 has a positive bias of 2 %–9 % that is stable to within ±0.5 % per decade. In the upper stratosphere, v3.6 has a positive bias that increases with altitude up to ∼ 16 % and a significant negative drift on the order of 2 %–3 % per decade, and v4.1 has a positive bias that increases with altitude up to ∼ 15 % and is stable to within ±1 % per decade. Estimates indicate that both versions 3.6 and 4.1 have precision values on the order of 0.1–0.2 ppmv below 20 km and above 45 km (∼ 5 %–10 %, depending on altitude). Between 20 and 45 km, the estimated v3.6 precision of ∼ 4 %–6 % is better than the estimated v4.1 precision of ∼ 6 %–10 %.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

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

Citations29
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric measurement techniquesSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207