MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296448755 · doi:10.1029/2022ja030896

NRLMSIS 2.1: An Empirical Model of Nitric Oxide Incorporated Into MSIS

2022· article· en· W4296448755 on OpenAlexaff
J. T. Emmert, McArthur Jones, D. E. Siskind, D. P. Drob, J. M. Picone, M. H. Stevens, S. M. Bailey, Stefan Bender, P. F. Bernath, B. Funke, Mark E. Hervig, Kristell Pérot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersOffice of Naval Research
KeywordsZenithSolar zenith angleExtant taxonAtmospheric sciencesEmpirical modellingAltitude (triangle)Environmental scienceMeteorologyEarth's magnetic fieldAtmospheric modelsLatitudeAtmosphere (unit)MathematicsPhysicsGeodesyComputer scienceGeologySimulationGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We have developed an empirical model of nitric oxide (NO) number density at altitudes from ∼73 km to the exobase, as a function of altitude, latitude, day of year, solar zenith angle, solar activity, and geomagnetic activity. The model is part of the NRLMSIS® 2.1 empirical model of atmospheric temperature and species densities; this upgrade to NRLMSIS 2.0 consists solely of the addition of NO. MSIS 2.1 assimilates observations from six space‐based instruments: UARS/HALOE, SNOE, Envisat/MIPAS, ACE/FTS, Odin/SMR, and AIM/SOFIE. We additionally evaluated the new model against independent extant NO data sets. In this paper, we describe the formulation and fitting of the model, examine biases between the data sets and model and among the data sets, compare with another empirical NO model (NOEM), and discuss scientific aspects of our analysis.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations94
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Space PhysicsSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207