MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W299198297

Diurnally, Seasonally and Regionally Varying Background Ozone and Decadal Trends in the Planetary Boundary Layer Over Canada and the United States from 1997 to 2006

2009· article· en· W299198297 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elton Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueEGUGA · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOzoneEnvironmental scienceClimatologyPercentileAtmospheric sciencesPrincipal component analysisResidenceOzone layerMeteorologyGeographyStatisticsDemographyGeologyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PBL ozone temporal variations were investigated for diurnal, seasonal and decadal scales in various regions across Canada and the United States for the period 1997–2006. Background ozone is difficult to quantify and define through observations. Because of the importance of its estimates for achievable policy targets, evaluation of health impacts and relationship with climate, regional and continental backgrounds were estimated. Principal Component Analyses (PCA) were done for 97 non-urban ozone sites for four seasons separately to define the contiguous regions. Three independent analyses were done to quantify the regional and continental background ozone. Method 1, the new method, applies the regions derived by PCA; then uses backward air parcel trajectory to systematically select the “clean” background air cluster associated with the lowest May to September 95th percentile for each site. Method 2 uses the intercepts from the linear regression between ozone and NOz (NOy minus NOx) to estimate the ozone mixing ratio associated with photochemically-aged air. Method 3 uses trajectory residence time to extrapolate background ozone when the residence time is equal to zero within a given region.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEGUGASame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207