Comparison of tropospheric NO <sub>2</sub> vertical columns in an urban environment using satellite, multi-axis differential optical absorption spectroscopy, and in situ measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Tropospheric NO2 vertical column densities have been retrieved and compared for the first time in Toronto, Canada, using three methods of differing spatial scales. Remotely sensed NO2 vertical column densities, retrieved from multi-axis differential optical absorption spectroscopy and satellite remote sensing, were evaluated by comparison with in situ vertical column densities estimated using a pair of chemiluminescence monitors situated 0.01 and 0.5 km a.g.l. (above ground level). The chemiluminescence measurements were corrected for the influence of NOz, which reduced the NO2 concentrations at 0.01 and 0.5 km by an average of 8 ± 1% and 12 ± 1%, respectively. The average absolute decrease in the chemiluminescence NO2 measurement as a result of this correction was less than 1 ppb. The monthly averaged ratio of the NO2 concentration at 0.5 to 0.01 km varied seasonally, and exhibited a negative linear dependence on the monthly average temperature, with Pearson's R = 0.83. During the coldest month, February, this ratio was 0.52 ± 0.04, while during the warmest month, July, this ratio was 0.34 ± 0.04, illustrating that NO2 is not well mixed within 0.5 km above ground level. Good correlation was observed between the remotely sensed and in situ NO2 vertical column densities (Pearson's R value ranging from 0.72 to 0.81), but the in situ vertical column densities were 52 to 58% greater than the remotely sensed columns. These results indicate that NO2 horizontal heterogeneity strongly impacted the magnitude of the remotely sensed columns. The in situ columns reflected an urban environment with major traffic sources, while the remotely sensed NO2 vertical column densities were representative of the region, which included spatial heterogeneity introduced by residential neighbourhoods and Lake Ontario. Despite the difference in absolute values, the reasonable correlation between the vertical column densities determined by three distinct methods increased confidence in the validity of the values provided by each measurement technique.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".