MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997829466 · doi:10.1029/2006jd007608

Evaluation of several PM<sub>2.5</sub> forecast models using data collected during the ICARTT/NEAQS 2004 field study

2007· article· en· W1997829466 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. A. McKeen, S. H. Chung, James M. Wilczak, Georg Grell, Irina V. Djalalova, Steven E. Peckham, V. S. Bouchet, R. Moffet, Youhua Tang, Gregory R. Carmichael, Rohit Mathur, Shaocai Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAerosolMeteorologyAir quality indexAtmospheric sciencesWeightingMorningClimatologyStatisticsGeographyMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real‐time forecasts of PM2.5 aerosol mass from seven air quality forecast models (AQFMs) are statistically evaluated against observations collected in the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada from two surface networks and aircraft data during the summer of 2004 International Consortium for Atmospheric Research on Transport and Transformation (ICARTT)/New England Air Quality Study (NEAQS) field campaign. The AIRNOW surface network is used to evaluate PM2.5 aerosol mass, the U.S. EPA STN network is used for PM2.5 aerosol composition comparisons, and aerosol size distribution and composition measured from the NOAA P‐3 aircraft are also compared. Statistics based on midday 8‐hour averages, as well as 24‐hour averages are evaluated against the AIRNOW surface network. When the 8‐hour average PM2.5 statistics are compared against equivalent ozone statistics for each model, the analysis shows that PM2.5 forecasts possess nearly equivalent correlation, less bias, and better skill relative to the corresponding ozone forecasts. An analysis of the diurnal variability shows that most models do not reproduce the observed diurnal cycle at urban and suburban monitor locations, particularly during the nighttime to early morning transition. While observations show median rural PM2.5 levels similar to urban and suburban values, the models display noticeably smaller rural/urban PM2.5 ratios. The ensemble PM2.5 forecast, created by combining six separate forecasts with equal weighting, is also evaluated and shown to yield the best possible forecast in terms of the statistical measures considered. The comparisons of PM2.5 composition with NOAA P‐3 aircraft data reveals two important features: (1) The organic component of PM2.5 is significantly underpredicted by all the AQFMs and (2) those models that include aqueous phase oxidation of SO2 to sulfate in clouds overpredict sulfate levels while those AQFMs that do not include this transformation mechanism underpredict sulfate. Errors in PM2.5 ammonium levels tend to correlate directly with errors in sulfate. Comparisons of PM2.5 composition with the U.S. EPA STN network for three of the AQFMs show that sulfate biases are consistently lower at the surface than aloft. Recommendations for further research and analysis to help improve PM2.5 forecasts are also provided.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations203
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207