Evaluating a Canadian regional air quality model using ground-based observations in north-eastern Canada and United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The simulated concentrations from a numerical 3-dimensional regional air quality model (MC2AQ) are compared to those of ground-based observations in north-eastern Canada and the United States. The model has oxidant chemistry for both inorganic and organic species and deposition routines driven online by a mesoscale compressible community meteorological model (MC2). A standard emission inventory of anthropogenic, natural and biogenic sources for the year 1990 for 21 atmospheric trace species was used in the simulation. The model was run for July 1999, because of the occurrence of a high ozone episode and the availability of the monitoring data for surface O3, SO2, NO, NO2 and NOx. The comparisons during the episode show that the model performs quite well for predicting concentrations and diurnal variations of the surface ozone. The predictions for other gaseous species show some discrepancies with observations, but they are consistent with the results from other models evaluated in the literature. The uncertainties in the emission inventory for these species might be the main causes of the discrepancies. Further studies are needed to improve the predictability of SO and NOx, especially as the model is developed to include particulate matter formation as a result of these gaseous precursors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".