MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4246908743 · doi:10.5194/gmdd-6-5595-2013

Turbulent transport, emissions, and the role of compensating errors in chemical transport models

2013· preprint· en· W4246908743 on OpenAlexaff
Paul A. Makar, R. Nissen, Andrew Teakles, J. Zhang, Qiong Zheng, Michael D. Moran, HT Yau, C. diCenzo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCMAQAir quality indexEnvironmental scienceTurbulenceMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesA priori and a posterioriChemical transport modelEconometricsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The balance between turbulent transport and emissions is a key issue in understanding the formation of O3 and PM2.5. Discrepancies between observed and simulated concentrations for these species are often ascribed to insufficient turbulent mixing, particularly for atmospherically stable environments. This assumption may be inaccurate – turbulent mixing deficiencies may explain only part of these discrepancies, while the timing of primary PM2.5 emissions may play a much more significant role than previously believed. In a study of these issues, two regional air-quality models, CMAQ and AURAMS, were compared against observations for a domain in north-western North America. The air quality models made use of the same emissions inventory, emissions processing system, meteorological driving model, and model domain, map projection and horizontal grid, eliminating these factors as potential sources of discrepancies between model predictions. The initial statistical comparison between the models against monitoring network data showed that AURAMS' O3 simulations outperformed those of CMAQ, while CMAQ outperformed AURAMS for most PM2.5 statistical measures. A process analysis of the models revealed that the choice of an a priori cut-off lower limit in the magnitude of vertical diffusion coefficients in each model could explain much of the difference between the model results for both O3 and PM2.5. The use of a larger value for the lower limit in vertical diffusivity was found to create a similar O3 and PM2.5 performance in AURAMS as was noted in CMAQ (with AURAMS showing improved PM2.5, yet degraded O3, and a similar time series as CMAQ). The differences between model results were most noticeable at night, when the use of a larger cut-off in turbulent diffusion coefficients resulted in an erroneous secondary peak in predicted night-time O3. Further investigation showed that the magnitude, timing and spatial allocation of area-source emissions could result in improvements to PM2.5 performance with minimal O3 performance degradation. The use of a relatively high cut-off in diffusion may in part compensate for erroneously high night-time PM2.5 emissions, but at the expense of increasing model error in O3. While the strength of turbulence plays a key role in O3 and PM2.5 formation, more accurate primary PM2.5 temporal emissions data may be needed to explain observed concentrations, particularly in urban regions.

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)0.010
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAir Quality and Health Impacts→French-language works237,207→