Comment on amt-2022-131
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a set of solar zenith angle, latitude- and altitude-dependent scaling factors to account for the diurnal variability in ozone and NO2 when comparing Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE) III/ISS observations to observations from other times of day. The scaling factors are calculated as a function of solar zenith angle from the 4-dimensional output of a global atmospheric chemistry model simulation of 2017–2020 that shows good agreement with observed vertical profiles. Using a global atmospheric chemistry model allows us to account for both chemically and dynamically driven variability. Both year-specific scale factors and a multi-year monthly climatology are available to decrease the uncertainty in inter-instrument comparisons and allow consistent comparisons between observations from different times of day. We describe the variability in the shape of the diurnal scale factors as a function of space and time. The quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) appears to be a contributing factor to interannual variability in the NO2 scaling factors, leading to differences between years that switch sign with altitude. We show that application of these scaling factors improves the comparison between SAGE III/ISS and OSIRIS NO2, and between SAGE III/ISS and OMPS LP, OSIRIS and ACE-FTS ozone observations. The comparisons between SAGE III/ISS ozone for sunrise or sunset versus MLS daytime or nighttime observations are also more consistent when we apply the diurnal scaling factors. There is good agreement between SAGE III/ISS V5.2 ozone and correlative measurements, with differences within 5 % between 20–50 km when corrected for diurnal variability. Similarly, the SAGE III/ISS V5.2 NO2 agreement with correlative measurement is mostly within 10 %. While the scale factors were designed for use with SAGE III/ISS observations, they can easily be applied to other observation intercomparisons as well.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.040 |
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".