MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029122596 · doi:10.1029/2004jd005746

An assessment of dust emission schemes in modeling east Asian dust storms

2006· article· en· W2029122596 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAeolian processes and effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsAeolian processesLoamDust stormEnvironmental scienceAsian DustSiltWind speedAtmospheric sciencesStormAerosolShear velocityWater contentSoil waterSoil scienceMeteorologyGeologyGeomorphologyPhysicsGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By implementing dust emission schemes developed by Marticorena and Bergametti (1995), Alfaro et al. (1997), Alfaro and Gomes (2001) (hereinafter referred to as MBA) and Shao (2001, 2004) into a regional climate model with a size‐distributed active aerosol algorithm, NARCM (Northern Aerosol Regional Climate Model), an assessment of dust emission schemes in the simulation of east Asian dust storms for March 2002 was carried out. Sensitivity of the parameters used for both the MBA and Shao schemes is first analyzed with a box version of the NARCM, where the wind erosion threshold friction velocities for both schemes are in good agreement for soil grain size range in diameter from 40 μm to 400 μm but differ for other size ranges. Although the impacts of clay, silt, loam and sand contents on vertical dust fluxes show a similar trend, their dependences on friction velocity vary substantially as the correction factors in each scheme to the threshold friction velocity, soil moisture and vegetation cover present a different degree of impact on vertical dust fluxes with wind friction velocity. One specific parameter, soil plastic pressure p , required by the Shao scheme varies between 10 3 Pa for loose surfaces and 10 5 Pa for hard crusted surfaces, which controls significantly emission flux. On the basis of the comparison of dust emission with the MBA scheme in the box model, the soil plastic pressure p applicable to Asian deserts for the Shao scheme is set to be 1000 Pa for sandy, 5000 Pa for loamy and silty and 10,000 Pa for clay soil in March 2002. In 3‐D simulations, both schemes captured the dust mobilization episodes during this period in east Asia and produced the similar spatial distributions of Asian dust column loading. Compared with the MBA scheme, the Shao scheme predicted much lower dust emission and surface concentration in eastern Mongolia and eastern and central north China and slightly higher with some additional dust emission sources in north western China, eastern Kazakhstan and western Mongolia. The key parameters responsible for the differences between the MBA and Shao emission schemes are the surface and soil‐related factors including soil moisture and vegetation coverage.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.315 · 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