MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092964437 · doi:10.1525/elementa.2020.034

Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report

2020· article· en· W3092964437 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueElementa Science of the Anthropocene · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilJet Propulsion LaboratoryNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaEuropean CommissionDivision of Atmospheric and Geospace SciencesSight Research UKCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTropospheric ozoneTroposphereOzoneCoupled model intercomparison projectEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyClimate modelClimate changeAtmospheric chemistryMeteorologyGeographyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our understanding of the processes that control the burden and budget of tropospheric ozone has changed dramatically over the last 60 years. Models are the key tools used to understand these changes, and these underscore that there are many processes important in controlling the tropospheric ozone budget. In this critical review, we assess our evolving understanding of these processes, both physical and chemical. We review model simulations from the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project and Chemistry Climate Modelling Initiative to assess the changes in the tropospheric ozone burden and its budget from 1850 to 2010. Analysis of these data indicates that there has been significant growth in the ozone burden from 1850 to 2000 (approximately 43 ± 9%) but smaller growth between 1960 and 2000 (approximately 16 ± 10%) and that the models simulate burdens of ozone well within recent satellite estimates. The Chemistry Climate Modelling Initiative model ozone budgets indicate that the net chemical production of ozone in the troposphere plateaued in the 1990s and has not changed since then inspite of increases in the burden. There has been a shift in net ozone production in the troposphere being greatest in the northern mid and high latitudes to the northern tropics, driven by the regional evolution of precursor emissions. An analysis of the evolution of tropospheric ozone through the 21st century, as simulated by Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 models, reveals a large source of uncertainty associated with models themselves (i.e., in the way that they simulate the chemical and physical processes that control tropospheric ozone). This structural uncertainty is greatest in the near term (two to three decades), but emissions scenarios dominate uncertainty in the longer term (2050–2100) evolution of tropospheric ozone. This intrinsic model uncertainty prevents robust predictions of near-term changes in the tropospheric ozone burden, and we review how progress can be made to reduce this limitation.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.247 · 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