MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4237265023 · doi:10.5194/acpd-12-5939-2012

Evaluation of chemical transport model predictions of primary organic aerosol for air masses classified by particle-component-based factor analysis

2012· preprint· en· W4237265023 on OpenAlexaffabout
Craig Stroud, Michael D. Moran, Paul A. Makar, Sunling Gong, J. Zhang, Jay G. Slowik, Jonathan P. D. Abbatt, G. Lu, Jeffrey R. Brook, C. Mihele, Q. Li, David Sills, K. B. Strawbridge, M. McGuire, Greg J. Evans

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsAerosolAir quality indexEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesDaytimeChemical transport modelMeteorologyWeather Research and Forecasting ModelParticle (ecology)ParticulatesAir pollutionGeographyChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Observations from the 2007 Border Air Quality and Meteorology Study (BAQS-Met 2007) in southern Ontario (ON), Canada, were used to evaluate Environment Canada's regional chemical transport model predictions of primary organic aerosol (POA). Environment Canada's operational numerical weather prediction model and the 2006 Canadian and 2005 US national emissions inventories were used as input to the chemical transport model (named AURAMS). Particle-component-based factor analysis was applied to aerosol mass spectrometer measurements made at one urban site (Windsor, ON) and two rural sites (Harrow and Bear Creek, ON) to derive hydrocarbon-like organic aerosol (HOA) factors. Co-located carbon monoxide (CO), PM2.5 black carbon (BC), and PM1 SO4 measurements were also used for evaluation and interpretation, permitting a detailed diagnostic model evaluation. At the urban site, good agreement was observed for the comparison of daytime campaign PM1 POA and HOA mean values: 1.1 μg m−3 vs. 1.2 μg m−3, respectively. However, a POA overprediction was evident on calm nights due to an overly-stable model surface layer. Biases in model POA predictions trended from positive to negative with increasing HOA values. This trend has several possible explanations, including (1) underweighting of urban locations in particulate matter (PM) spatial surrogate fields, (2) overly-coarse model grid spacing for resolving urban-scale sources, and (3) lack of a model particle POA evaporation process during dilution of vehicular POA tail-pipe emissions to urban scales. Furthermore, a trend in POA bias was observed at the urban site as a function of the BC/HOA ratio, suggesting a possible association of POA underprediction for diesel combustion sources. For several time periods, POA overprediction was also observed for sulphate-rich plumes, suggesting that our model POA fractions for the PM2.5 chemical speciation profiles may be too high for these point sources. At the rural Harrow site, significant underpredictions in PM1 POA concentration were found compared to observed HOA concentration and were associated, based on back-trajectory analysis, with (1) transport from the Detroit/Windsor urban complex, (2) longer-range transport from the US Midwest, and (3) biomass burning. Daytime CO concentrations were significantly overpredicted at Windsor but were unbiased at Harrow. Collectively, these biases provide support for a hypothesis that combines a current underweighting of PM spatial surrogate fields for urban locations with insufficient model vertical mixing for sources close to the urban measurement sites. The magnitude of the area POA emissions sources in the US and Canadian inventories (e.g., food cooking, road and soil dust, waste disposal burning) suggests that more effort should be placed at reducing uncertainties in these sectors, especially spatial and temporal surrogates.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols→French-language works237,207→