MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787250185 · doi:10.5194/acp-18-18123-2018

Source sector and region contributions to black carbon and PM <sub>2.5</sub> in the Arctic

2018· article· en· W2787250185 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Negin Sobhani, Sarika Kulkarni, Gregory R. Carmichael

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Park ServiceEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationDesert Research InstituteNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchUniversity of California, DavisU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsArcticEnvironmental scienceWeather Research and Forecasting ModelParticulatesAtmospheric sciencesBiomass burningClimatologyPhysical geographyGeographyMeteorologyOceanographyAerosolChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impacts of black carbon (BC) and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters less than 2.5 µm (PM 2.5 ) emissions from different source sectors (e.g., transportation, power, industry, residential, and biomass burning) and geographic source regions (e.g., Europe, North America, China, Russia, central Asia, south Asia, and the Middle East) to Arctic BC and PM 2.5 concentrations are investigated through a series of annual sensitivity simulations using the Weather Research and Forecasting – sulfur transport and deposition model (WRF-STEM) modeling framework. The simulations are validated using observations at two Arctic sites (Alert and Barrow Atmospheric Baseline Observatory), the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) surface sites over the US, and aircraft observations over the Arctic during spring and summer 2008. Emissions from power, industrial, and biomass burning sectors are found to be the main contributors to the Arctic PM 2.5 surface concentration, with contributions of ∼ 30 %, ∼ 25 %, and ∼ 20 %, respectively. In contrast, the residential and transportation sectors are identified as the major contributors to Arctic BC, with contributions of ∼ 38 % and ∼ 30 %. Anthropogenic emissions are the most dominant contributors (∼ 88 %) to the BC surface concentration over the Arctic annually; however, the contribution from biomass burning is significant over the summer (up to ∼ 50 %). Among all geographical regions, Europe and China have the highest contributions to the BC surface concentrations, with contributions of ∼ 46 % and ∼ 25 %, respectively. Industrial and power emissions had the highest contributions to the Arctic sulfate (SO 4 ) surface concentration, with annual contributions of ∼ 43 % and ∼ 41 %, respectively. Further sensitivity runs show that, among various economic sectors of all geographic regions, European and Chinese residential sectors contribute to ∼ 25 % and ∼ 14 % of the Arctic average surface BC concentration. Emissions from the Chinese industry sector and European power sector contribute ∼ 12 % and ∼ 18 % of the Arctic surface sulfate concentration. For Arctic PM 2.5 , the anthropogenic emissions contribute > ∼ 75 % at the surface annually, with contributions of ∼ 25 % from Europe and ∼ 20 % from China; however, the contributions of biomass burning emissions are significant in particular during spring and summer. The contributions of each geographical region to the Arctic PM 2.5 and BC vary significantly with altitude. The simulations show that the BC from China is transported to the Arctic in the midtroposphere, while BC from European emission sources are transported near the surface under 5 km, especially during winter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations50
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207