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

Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report

2020· article· en· W3092964437 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander T. Archibald, Jessica L. Neu, Yasin Elshorbany, Owen R. Cooper, Paul J. Young, Hideharu Akiyoshi, R. A. Cox, Mhairi Coyle, Richard G. Derwent, Makoto Deushi, Angelo Finco, G. J. Frost, I. E. Galbally, Giacomo Gerosa, Claire Granier, Paul T. Griffiths, Ryan Hossaini, Lu Hu, Patrick Jöckel, Béatrice Josse, Meiyun Lin, Mariano Mertens, Olaf Morgenstern, Manish Naja, Vaishali Naïk, S. J. Oltmans, David A. Plummer, Laura E. Revell, Alfonso Saiz‐Lopez, Pallavi Saxena, Youngsub Matthew Shin, Imran Shahid, Dudley E. Shallcross, Simone Tilmes, Thomas Trickl, Timothy J. Wallington, Tao Wang, H. M. Worden, Guang Zeng

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.013

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations248
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElementa Science of the AnthropoceneSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207