Intercomparison of Seven Collocated Ground-based Infrared Spectrometer Radiance Observations and Retrieved Thermodynamic Profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Thermodynamic profiles, especially in the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL), are essential for many research and operational applications. Ground-based infrared spectrometers (IRS) are commercially available, and thermodynamic profiles in the ABL can be retrieved from these observations at 5-minute resolution or better. This study deployed seven IRS systems within 5 m of each other in Boulder, Colorado, USA, in September–October 2023, providing an opportunity to evaluate the relative accuracy of the measured radiances from these systems as well as the retrieved thermodynamic profiles. The analysis demonstrates that the observed radiances from the seven instruments agree within 1 % of the ambient radiance in both opaque and more transparent channels. The differences in the spectral calibration between the instruments were smaller than 0.11 cm-1, relative to the nominal effective wavenumber of the metrology laser of 15799 cm-1 (i.e., better than 7.1 ppm). Further, the retrieved temperature and humidity profiles agree with each other well within the uncertainty of the retrieved profiles, and qualities derived from these thermodynamic profiles such as precipitable water vapor and height of the convective boundary layer also agree within their uncertainties. These results demonstrate a high degree of repeatability and precision, and that if these instruments were deployed as part of a network, any differences larger than the retrieval uncertainty would be associated with real environmental differences and not an artifact of the instrument calibration or retrieval.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".