MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4205830685 · doi:10.5194/acp-2021-975-rc1

Comment on acp-2021-975

2022· peer-review· en· W4205830685 on OpenAlexaff
Cynthia Whaley, Rashed Mahmood, Knut von Salzen, Barbara Winter, Sabine Eckhardt, S. R. Arnold, S. R. Beagley, Silvia Becagli, Rong‐You Chien, Jesper Heile Christensen, Sujay Manish Damani, Xinyi Dong, Konstantinos Eleftheriadis, Nikolaos Evangeliou, G. Faluvegi, M. Flanner, Joshua S. Fu, Michael Gauss, Fabio Giardi, Wanmin Gong, J. Hjorth, Lin Huang, Ulaş İm, Yugo Kanaya, Srinath Krishnan, Zbigniew Klimont, Thomas Kà ⁄ hn, Joakim Langner, Kathy S. Law, Louis Marelle, Andreas Maßling, Dirk Olivié, Tatsuo Onishi, Naga Oshima, Yiran Peng, David A. Plummer, Olga Popovicheva, Luca Pozzoli, Jean‐Christophe Raut, Maria Sand, Laura Saunders, Julia Schmale, Sangeeta Sharma, Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie, Henrik Skov, Fumikazu Taketani, Manu Anna Thomas, Rita Traversi, Kostas Tsigaridis, Svetlana Tsyro, Steven T. Turnock, Vito Vitale, Kaley A. Walker, Minqi Wang, Duncan Watson‐Parris, Tahya Weiss‐Gibbons

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of TorontoEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceArcticAtmospheric sciencesNorthern HemisphereClimatologyClimate modelGlobal warmingRange (aeronautics)Atmosphere (unit)ParticulatesGreenhouse gasTroposphereClimate changeAtmospheric modelMeteorologyGeographyOceanographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. While carbon dioxide is the main cause for global warming, modeling short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs) such as methane, ozone, and particles in the Arctic allows us to simulate near-term climate and health impacts for a sensitive, pristine region that is warming at 3 times the global rate. Atmospheric modeling is critical for understanding the long-range transport of pollutants to the Arctic, as well as the abundance and distribution of SLCFs throughout the Arctic atmosphere. Modeling is also used as a tool to determine SLCF impacts on climate and health in the present and in future emissions scenarios. In this study, we evaluate 18 state-of-the-art atmospheric and Earth system models by assessing their representation of Arctic and Northern Hemisphere atmospheric SLCF distributions, considering a wide range of different chemical species (methane, tropospheric ozone and its precursors, black carbon, sulfate, organic aerosol, and particulate matter) and multiple observational datasets. Model simulations over 4 years (2008–2009 and 2014–2015) conducted for the 2022 Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) SLCF assessment report are thoroughly evaluated against satellite, ground, ship, and aircraft-based observations. The annual means, seasonal cycles, and 3-D distributions of SLCFs were evaluated using several metrics, such as absolute and percent model biases and correlation coefficients. The results show a large range in model performance, with no one particular model or model type performing well for all regions and all SLCF species. The multi-model mean (mmm) was able to represent the general features of SLCFs in the Arctic and had the best overall performance. For the SLCFs with the greatest radiative impact (CH4, O3, BC, and SO 42- ), the mmm was within ±25 % of the measurements across the Northern Hemisphere. Therefore, we recommend a multi-model ensemble be used for simulating climate and health impacts of SLCFs. Of the SLCFs in our study, model biases were smallest for CH4 and greatest for OA. For most SLCFs, model biases skewed from positive to negative with increasing latitude. Our analysis suggests that vertical mixing, long-range transport, deposition, and wildfires remain highly uncertain processes. These processes need better representation within atmospheric models to improve their simulation of SLCFs in the Arctic environment. As model development proceeds in these areas, we highly recommend that the vertical and 3-D distribution of SLCFs be evaluated, as that information is critical to improving the uncertain processes in models.

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)0.012
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0220.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2250.165

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→