MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008331801 · doi:10.1175/jas3668.1

Using MODIS and AERONET to Determine GCM Aerosol Size

2006· article· en· W2008331801 on OpenAlexafffund
Glen Lesins, Ulrike Lohmann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Atmospheric Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsAERONETAerosolEnvironmental scienceModerate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerForcing (mathematics)Atmospheric sciencesAtmosphere (unit)Range (aeronautics)Mode (computer interface)ClimatologyMeteorologyRemote sensingSatellitePhysicsGeographyGeologyComputer scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aerosol size is still a poorly constrained quantity in general circulation models (GCMs). By using the modal radii of the coarse and fine mode retrieved from 103 stations in the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) and the fine mode aerosol optical depth fraction derived from both the Moderate Resolute Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Terra and AERONET, a globally and monthly averaged aerosol size distribution dataset was computed assuming internally mixed aerosols. Different methods were employed in creating the size distribution datasets that were input to the ECHAM4 climate model giving a globally averaged aerosol optical depth (AOD) at 500 nm that ranged from 0.11 to 0.20 depending on the method. This translates into a globally averaged direct aerosol top-of-atmosphere forcing range from −1.6 to −3.9 W m−2. Reducing the uncertainty in the aerosol sizes is important when using AOD to validate models since mass burden errors can then be assumed to be the main AOD error source. This paper explores a procedure that can help achieve this goal.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Atmospheric SciencesSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207