Consistency evaluation of tropospheric ozone from ozonesonde and IAGOS aircraft observations: vertical distribution, ozonesonde types and station-airport distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The vertical distribution of tropospheric O3 from ozonesondes is compared with that from In-service Aircraft for a Global Observing System (IAGOS) measurements at 23 pairs of sites between about 30° S and 55° N, from 1995 to 2021. Profiles of tropospheric O3 from IAGOS aircraft are in generally good agreement with ozonesonde observations, for ECC, Brewer-Mast, and Carbon-Iodine sensors, with average biases of 7.03 ppb, 6.28 ppb, and -4.48 ppb, and correlation coefficients (R) of 0.72, 0.86, and 0.82, respectively. Agreement between the aircraft and Indian-sonde observations is poor, with an average bias of 24.07 ppb and R of 0.41. The O3 concentration observed by ECC sondes is on average higher by 5–10 % than that observed by IAGOS aircraft, and the relative bias increases modestly with altitude. For other sonde types, there are some seasonal and altitude variations in the relative bias with respect to IAGOS measurements, but these appear to be caused by local differences. The distance between station and airport within 4° has little effect on the comparison results. For the ECC ozonesonde, the overall bias with respect to IAGOS measurements varies from 5.7 to 9.8 ppb, when the station pairs are grouped by station-airport distances of <1° (latitude and longitude), 1–2°, and 2–4°. Correlations for these groups are R = 0.8, 0.9 and 0.7. These comparison results provide important information for merging ozonesonde and IAGOS measurement datasets. They can also be used to evaluate the relative biases of the different sonde types in the troposphere, using the aircraft as a transfer standard.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".