A comprehensive evaluation of seasonal simulations of ozone in the northeastern US during summers of 2001–2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Regional air quality simulations were conducted for summers 2001–2005 in the eastern US and subjected to extensive evaluation using various ground and airborne measurements. A brief climate evaluation focused on transport by comparing modeled dominant map types with ones from reanalysis. Reasonable agreement was found for their frequency of occurrence and distinctness of circulation patterns. The two most frequent map types from reanalysis were the Bermuda High (22%) and passage of a Canadian cold frontal over the northeastern US (20%). The model captured their frequency of occurrence at 25% and 18% respectively. The simulated five average distributions of 1-h ozone (O3) daily maxima using the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system reproduced salient features in observations. This suggests that the ability of the regional climate model to depict transport processes accurately is critical for reasonable simulations of surface O3. Comparison of mean bias, root mean square error, and index of agreement for CMAQ summer surface 8-h O3 daily maxima and observations showed –0.6±14 nmol/mol, 14 nmol/mol, and 71% respectively. CMAQ performed best in moderately polluted conditions and less satisfactorily in highly polluted ones. This highlights the common problem of overestimating/underestimating lower/higher modeled O3 levels. Diagnostic analysis suggested that significant overestimation of inland nighttime low O3 mixing ratios may be attributed to underestimates of nitric oxide (NO) emissions at night. The absence of the second daily peak in simulations for the Appledore Island marine site possibly resulted from coarse grid resolution misrepresentation of land surface type. Comparison with shipboard measurements suggested that CMAQ has an inherent problem of underpredicting O3 levels in continental outflow. Modeled O3 vertical profiles exhibited a lack of structure indicating that key processes missing from CMAQ, such as lightning produced NO and stratospheric intrusions, are important for accurate upper tropospheric representations.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".