Bibliographic record
Abstract
During a course of lectures on the kinetics of the upper atmosphere in the spring of 1962, Prof. S. Chapman brought the subject of noctilucent clouds to my attention and aroused my interest in them.At that time there was only one well-documented observation of NLC over North America and there were no well-documented reports of these clouds from the southern hemisphere.During the summer of 1962 I began a watch for NLC in Alaska which resulted in the observation of five displays; and I prepared a proposal for organized study of NLC, which was sent to the National Science Foundation in the fall of 1962 and funded by them in the summer of 1963.In the fall of 1962, a major effort to establish a large network of noctilucent cloud observing stations in the northern and southern hemisphere was begun.Several hundred meteorological stations in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Chile, Argentina, the Antarctic, and the islands in the region 45-70S are now participating in this network.NLC observation manuals for both the northern and southern hemispheres have been prepared and sent to all participating stations, Fran the data obtained by these many stations around the world, new information on the dependence of the frequency of occurrence upon season and latitude, and as to the lifetime, spatial extent, and velocity of NLC has been obtained.Deliberations with representatives of WMO, IAMAP, the USSR, and Q?eat Britain at the IQSY meeting in Madrid (1965) on the subject of NLC resulted in preparations to have all meteorological stations in the northern and southern hemispheres (between 45 and 90 degrees latitude)
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".