MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400132376 · doi:10.1029/2024jd040990

Antarctic Polar Stratospheric Cloud Analysis of ACE‐FTS Data From 2005 to 2023

2024· article· en· W4400132376 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael J. Lecours, C. D. Boone, P. F. Bernath

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Space AgencyNuclear Safety and Security CommissionNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPolarAtmospheric sciencesSulfateSupercoolingClimatologyEnvironmental scienceVolcanoFirnNitric acidChemistryGeologyMeteorologyPhysical geographyGlacierGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present an analysis of Antarctic polar winters from 2005 to 2023 as observed by the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE). The unique broad band infrared spectral features in ACE “residual” spectra are used to classify the spectra of polar aerosols by composition into polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) and sulfate aerosols. The spectra of PSCs are further classified into nitric acid trihydrate, supercooled ternary solutions, supercooled nitric acid, ice‐mix, and mixtures of PSCs. A breakdown of PSC composition is presented for each year. Antarctic winter seasons with unusual compositions are: 2011, in which volcanic ash mixed with PSCs was observed from July to August; 2019, which experienced a stratospheric warming event; 2020, the PSC season following the Australian Black Summer pyrocumulonimbus event; and 2023, which had unusually large sulfate aerosols following the Honga‐Tonga Honga Ha'apai eruption of 2022.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate→French-language works237,207→