Ground-based validation of the MetOp-A and MetOp-B GOME-2 OClO measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on ground-based validation of the atmospheric OClO data record produced within the framework of EUMETSAT's Satellite Application Facility on Atmospheric Chemistry Monitoring (AC SAF) using the Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment (GOME)-2A and GOME-2B instrument measurements, covering the 2007–2016 and 2013–2016 periods, respectively. OClO slant column densities are compared to correlative measurements collected from nine Zenith-Scattered-Light Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy (ZSL-DOAS) instruments from the Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC) distributed in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Sensitivity tests are performed on the ground-based data to estimate the impact of the different OClO DOAS analysis settings. On this basis, we infer systematic uncertainties of about 25 % (i.e., about 3.75×10 13 molec. cm −2 ) between the different ground-based data analyses, reaching total uncertainties ranging from about 26 % to 33 % for the different stations (i.e., around 4 to 5×10 13 molec. cm −2 ). Time series at the different sites show good agreement between satellite and ground-based data for both the inter-annual variability and the overall OClO seasonal behavior. GOME-2A results are found to be noisier than those of GOME-2B, especially after 2011, probably due to instrumental degradation effects. Daily linear regression analysis for OClO-activated periods yield correlation coefficients of 0.8 for GOME-2A and 0.87 for GOME-2B, with slopes with respect to the ground-based data ensemble of 0.64 and 0.72, respectively. Satellite minus ground-based offsets are within 8×10 13 molec. cm −2 , with some differences between GOME-2A and GOME-2B depending on the station. Overall, considering all the stations, a median offset of about -2.2×1013 molec. cm −2 is found for both GOME-2 instruments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".