MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247020643 · doi:10.5194/acp-2017-627

Contributions of natural and anthropogenic sources to ambient ammonia in the Athabasca Oil Sands and north-western Canada

2017· preprint· en· W4247020643 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cynthia Whaley, Paul A. Makar, Mark W. Shephard, Leiming Zhang, Junhua Zhang, Qiong Zheng, Ayodeji Akingunola, Gregory R. Wentworth, J. G. Murphy, Shailesh Kumar Kharol, Karen Cady‐Pereira

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAlberta Environment and Protected AreasUniversity of TorontoEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsEnvironmental scienceDeposition (geology)Flux (metallurgy)Atmospheric sciencesAir quality indexAerosolHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyGeologyStructural basinGeographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Atmospheric ammonia (NH3) is a short-lived pollutant that plays an important role in aerosol chemistry and nitrogen deposition. Dominant NH3 emissions are from agriculture and forest fires, both of which are increasing globally. The Alberta Oil Sands region has relatively low ambient NH3 concentrations because of its remote location in northern Canada; however, a previous attempt to model NH3 in the region showed a substantial negative bias compared to satellite column and aircraft observations. Known missing sources of NH3 in the model were re-emission of NH3 from plants and soils (bidirectional flux), and forest fire emissions, but the relative impact of these sources on NH3 concentrations and column totals was unknown. Here we have used a research version of the high-resolution air quality forecasting model, GEM-MACH, to quantify the relative impacts of natural (bidirectional flux of NH3 and forest fire emissions) and anthropogenic (Oil Sands operations, combustion of fossil fuels, and agriculture) sources on ammonia concentrations, both at the surface and aloft, with a focus on the Athabasca Oil Sands region, during a measurement-intensive campaign in the summer of 2013. The addition of fires and bidirectional flux has improved the model bias, slope and correlation coefficients relative to ground, aircraft, and satellite measurements significantly. By running the GEM-MACH model in three configurations and calculating their differences, we find that averaged over Alberta and Saskatchewan during this time period; an average of 23.1 % of surface NH3 came from direct anthropogenic sources, 56.6 % (or 1.24 ppbv) from bidirectional flux (reemission from plants and soils), and 20.3 % (or 0.42 ppbv) from forest fires. In the NH3 total column, an average of 19.5 % came from direct anthropogenic sources, 50.0 % from bidirectional flux, and 30.5 % from forest fires. The addition of bidirectional flux and fire emissions caused the overall average net flux of NH3 across the domain to be positive (upward). It also increased the NH+4 wet deposition by nearly a factor of three during the period simulated. Note that forest fires are very episodic and their contributions will vary significantly for different time periods and 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207