Consistency evaluation of tropospheric ozone from ozonesonde and IAGOS (In-service Aircraft for a Global Observing System) observations: vertical distribution, ozonesonde types, and station–airport distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vertical distribution of tropospheric O 3 from ozonesondes is compared with that from In-service Aircraft for a Global Observing System (IAGOS) measurements collected at 23 pairs of sites between about 30° S and 55° N from 1995 to 2021. Profiles of tropospheric O 3 from IAGOS are generally in good agreement with ozonesonde observations from electrochemical concentration cells (ECCs), Brewer–Mast sondes, and carbon–iodine sensors, with average biases of 2.58, −0.28, and 0.67 ppb and correlation coefficients ( R ) of 0.72, 0.82, and 0.66, respectively. Agreement between aircraft and Indian-sonde observations is poor, with an average bias of 15.32 ppb and an R value of 0.44. The O 3 concentration observed by ECC sondes is, on average, 5 %–10 % higher than that observed by IAGOS, and the relative bias increases modestly with altitude. For other sonde types, there are some seasonal and altitudinal variations in the relative bias with respect to the IAGOS measurements, but these appear to be caused by local differences. The distance between the station and airport, when within 4° (latitude and longitude), has little effect on the comparison results. For the ECC ozonesondes, the overall bias with respect to the 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 correspond to 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 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".