Vertical distributions of sulfur species simulated by large scale atmospheric models in COSAM: Comparison with observations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparison of large-scale models simulating atmospheric sulfate aerosols (COSAM) was conducted to increase our understanding of global distributions of sulfate aerosols and precursors. Earlier model comparisons focused on wet deposition measurements and sulfate aerosol concentrations in source regions at the surface. They found that different models simulated the observed sulfate surface concentrations mostly within a factor of two, but that the simulated column burdens and vertical profiles were very different amongst different models. In the COSAM exercise, one aspect is the comparison of sulfate aerosol and precursor gases above the surface. Vertical profiles of SO2, SO2−4, oxidants and cloud properties were measured by aircraft during the North Atlantic Regional Experiment (NARE) experiment in August/September 1993 off the coast of Nova Scotia and during the Second Eulerian Model Evaluation Field Study (EMEFSII), in central Ontario in March/April 1990. While no single model stands out as being best or worst, the general tendency is that those models simulating the full oxidant chemistry tend to agree best with observations although differences in transport and treatment of clouds are important as well.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it