MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4237061061 · doi:10.5194/amtd-7-4729-2014

Validation of XCH <sub>4</sub> derived from SWIR spectra of GOSAT TANSO-FTS with aircraft measurement data

2014· preprint· en· W4237061061 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. Inoue, Isamu Morino, Osamu Uchino, Yuki Miyamoto, Tazu Saeki, Yukio Yoshida, Tatsuya Yokota, Colm Sweeney, Pieter P. Tans, Sébastien Biraud, Toshinobu Machida, J. V. Pittman, E. A. Kort, T. Tanaka, S. Kawakami, Y. Sawa, Kazuhiro Tsuboi, Hidekazu Matsueda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiological and Environmental ResearchCanadian Space AgencyU.S. Department of EnergyNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationHarvard UniversityNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceSatelliteLongitudeGreenhouse gasStandard deviationLatitudeRemote sensingMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesGeodesyPhysicsGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Column-averaged dry-air mole fractions of methane (XCH4), retrieved from Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) Short-Wavelength InfraRed (SWIR) spectra, were validated by using aircraft measurement data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the US Department of Energy (DOE), the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), the HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations (HIPPO) program, and the GOSAT validation aircraft observation campaign over Japan. In the calculation of XCH4 from aircraft measurements (aircraft-based XCH4), other satellite data were used for the CH4 profiles above the tropopause. We proposed a data-screening scheme for aircraft-based XCH4 for reliable validation of GOSAT XCH4. Further, we examined the impact of GOSAT SWIR column averaging kernels (CAK) on the aircraft-based XCH4 calculation and found that the difference between aircraft-based XCH4 with and without the application of the GOSAT CAK was less than ±9 ppb at maximum, with an average difference of −0.5 ppb. We compared GOSAT XCH4 Ver. 02.00 data retrieved within ±2° or ±5° latitude/longitude boxes centered at each aircraft measurement site with aircraft-based XCH4 measured on a GOSAT overpass day. In general, GOSAT XCH4 was in good agreement with aircraft-based XCH4. However, over land, the GOSAT data showed a positive bias of 1.5 ppb (2.0 ppb) with a standard deviation of 14.9 ppb (16.0 ppb) within the ±2° (±5°) boxes, and over ocean, the average bias was 4.1 ppb (6.5 ppb) with a standard deviation of 9.4 ppb (8.8 ppb) within the ±2° (±5°) boxes. In addition, we obtained similar results when we used an aircraft-based XCH4 time series obtained by curve fitting with temporal interpolation for comparison with GOSAT data.

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)0.002
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→