MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200273013 · doi:10.5194/acp-2021-805-ac1

Reply on RC2

2021· peer-review· en· W4200273013 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsAERONETAerosolEnvironmental scienceClimatologyArcticSpectroradiometerSun photometerModerate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerMeteorologyBiomass burningAtmospheric sciencesRemote sensingGeographySatelliteGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an Arctic aerosol optical depth (AOD) climatology and trend analysis for 2003–2019 spring and summertime periods derived from a combination of multi-agency aerosol reanalyses, remote sensing retrievals, and ground observations. This includes the U.S. Navy Aerosol Analysis and Prediction System ReAnalysis version 1 (NAAPS-RA v1), the NASA Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, version 2 (MERRA-2), and the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service ReAnalysis (CAMSRA). Space-borne remote sensing retrievals of AOD are considered from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR), and Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP). Ground-based data include sun photometer data from Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) sites and oceanic Maritime Aerosol Network (MAN) measurements. Aerosol reanalysis AODs and space-borne retrievals show consistent climatological spatial patterns and trends for both spring and summer seasons over the sub-Arctic (60–70° N). Consistent signs in the AOD trend are also found for the high Arctic (north of 70° N) from reanalyses. The aerosol reanalyses yield more consistent AOD results than climate models, verify well with AERONET, and corroborate complementary climatological and trend analysis. Speciated AODs are more variable than total AOD among the three reanalyses, and a little more so for March–May (MAM) than for June–August (JJA). Black Carbon (BC) AOD in the Arctic comes predominantly from biomass burning sources in both MAM and JJA, and biomass burning overwhelms anthropogenic sources in JJA for the study period. AOD exhibits a negative trend in the Arctic in MAM, and a positive trend in JJA during 2003–2019, due to an overall decrease in sulfate/anthropogenic pollutions, and a significant increase in biomass burning smoke in JJA. Interannual Arctic AOD variability is significantly large, driven by fine-mode, and specifically, biomass burning (BB) smoke, though more so in JJA than in MAM. Extreme AOD events during spring and summer in the Arctic, defined as AOD greater than the 95th percentile value, are mainly attributed to BB smoke transport events. Extreme AOD cases tend to occur later in the season (i.e., July and August, in the latter decade rather than spreading over April–August in the early decade during 2003–2019) corresponding to a shift to a later time in extreme boreal BB activities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0130.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2560.224

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.316 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology→French-language works237,207→