MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158261139 · doi:10.1029/2008gl036935

Impact of the assimilation of ozone from the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer on surface ozone across North America

2009· article· en· W2158261139 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Parrington, Dylan B. A. Jones, K. W. Bowman, Anne M. Thompson, D. W. Tarasick, J. T. Merrill, S. J. Oltmans, Thierry Leblanc, J. C. Witte, Dylan B. Millet

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationHarvard UniversityNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsOzoneTroposphereTropospheric ozoneAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceTotal Ozone Mapping SpectrometerClimatologyPlanetary boundary layerBoundary layerOzone layerFlux (metallurgy)MeteorologyGeologyChemistryGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the impact of assimilating ozone observations from the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) on North American surface ozone abundances in the GEOS‐Chem model in August 2006. The assimilation reduces the negative bias in the modeled free tropospheric ozone, which enhances the ozone flux into the boundary layer. Surface ozone abundances increased by as much as 9 ppb in western North America and by less than 2 ppb in the southeast, resulting in a total background source of ozone of 20–40 ppb. The enhanced ozone in the model reduced the model bias with respect to surface ozone observations in the western USA, but exacerbated it in the east. This increase in the bias in the boundary layer in the east, despite the agreement between the assimilation and ozonesonde measurements in the free troposphere, suggests errors in the ozone sources or sinks or in boundary layer mixing in the model.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations108
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207