Optimal estimation for global ground‐level fine particulate matter concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop an optimal estimation (OE) algorithm based on top‐of‐atmosphere reflectances observed by the MODIS satellite instrument to retrieve near‐surface fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The GEOS‐Chem chemical transport model is used to provide prior information for the Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) retrieval and to relate total column AOD to PM2.5. We adjust the shape of the GEOS‐Chem relative vertical extinction profiles by comparison with lidar retrievals from the CALIOP satellite instrument. Surface reflectance relationships used in the OE algorithm are indexed by land type. Error quantities needed for this OE algorithm are inferred by comparison with AOD observations taken by a worldwide network of sun photometers (AERONET) and extended globally based upon aerosol speciation and cross correlation for simulated values, and upon land type for observational values. Significant agreement in PM2.5 is found over North America for 2005 (slope = 0.89; r = 0.82; 1‐σ error = 1 µg/m3 + 27%), with improved coverage and correlation relative to previous work for the same region and time period, although certain subregions, such as the San Joaquin Valley of California are better represented by previous estimates. Independently derived error estimates of the OE PM2.5 values at in situ locations over North America (of ±(2.5 µg/m3 + 31%) and Europe of ±(3.5 µg/m3 + 30%) are corroborated by comparison with in situ observations, although globally (error estimates of ±(3.0 µg/m3 + 35%), may be underestimated. Global population‐weighted PM2.5 at 50% relative humidity is estimated as 27.8 µg/m3 at 0.1° × 0.1° resolution.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".