HO <sub>x</sub> observations over West Africa during AMMA: impact of isoprene and NO <sub>x</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Aircraft OH and HO2 measurements made over West Africa during the AMMA field campaign in summer 2006 have been investigated using a box model constrained to observations of long-lived species and physical parameters. "Good" agreement was found for HO2 (modelled to observed gradient of 1.23 ± 0.11). However, the model significantly overpredicts OH concentrations. The reasons for this are not clear, but may reflect instrumental instabilities affecting the OH measurements. Within the model, HOx concentrations in West Africa are controlled by relatively simple photochemistry, with production dominated by ozone photolysis and reaction of O(1D) with water vapour, and loss processes dominated by HO2 + HO2 and HO2 + RO2. Isoprene chemistry was found to influence forested regions. In contrast to several recent field studies in very low NOx and high isoprene environments, we do not observe any dependence of model success for HO2 on isoprene and attribute this to efficient recycling of HOx through RO2 + NO reactions under the moderate NOx concentrations (5–300 ppt NO in the boundary layer, median 76 ppt) encountered during AMMA. This suggests that some of the problems with understanding the impact of isoprene on atmospheric composition may be limited to the extreme low range of NOx concentrations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".