MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4298127124 · doi:10.5194/acp-2022-319-rc2

Comment on acp-2022-319

2022· peer-review· en· W4298127124 on OpenAlexaff
Cynthia Whaley, Kathy S. Law, J. Hjorth, Henrik Skov, S. R. Arnold, Joakim Langner, Jakob Pernov, Garance Bergeron, Ilann Bourgeois, Jesper Heile Christensen, Rong‐You Chien, Makoto Deushi, Xinyi Dong, Peter Effertz, G. Faluvegi, M. Flanner, Joshua S. Fu, Michael Gauss, Greg Huey, Ulaş İm, Rigel Kivi, Louis Marelle, Tatsuo Onishi, Naga Oshima, Irina Petropavlovskikh, Jeff Peischl, David A. Plummer, Luca Pozzoli, Jean‐Christophe Raut, Tom Ryerson, Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie, Sverre Solberg, Manu Anna Thomas, Chelsea R. Thompson, Kostas Tsigaridis, Svetlana Tsyro, Steven T. Turnock, Knut von Salzen, D. W. Tarasick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTroposphereArcticEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesTropospheric ozoneOzone depletionClimatologyArctic geoengineeringTropopauseClimate modelOzoneGreenhouse gasClimate changeMeteorologyOceanographyGeographyArctic ice packGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. As the third most important greenhouse gas (GHG) after carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), tropospheric ozone (O3) is also an air pollutant causing damage to human health and ecosystems. This study brings together recent research on observations and modeling of tropospheric O3 in the Arctic, a rapidly warming and sensitive environment. At different locations in the Arctic, the observed surface O3 seasonal cycles are quite different. Coastal Arctic locations, for example, have a minimum in the springtime due to O3 depletion events resulting from surface bromine chemistry. In contrast, other Arctic locations have a maximum in the spring. The 12 state-of-the-art models used in this study lack the surface halogen chemistry needed to simulate coastal Arctic surface O3 depletion in the springtime; however, the multi-model median (MMM) has accurate seasonal cycles at non-coastal Arctic locations. There is a large amount of variability among models, which has been previously reported, and we show that there continues to be no convergence among models or improved accuracy in simulating tropospheric O3 and its precursor species. The MMM underestimates Arctic surface O3 by 5 % to 15 % depending on the location. The vertical distribution of tropospheric O3 is studied from recent ozonesonde measurements and the models. The models are highly variable, simulating free-tropospheric O3 within a range of ±50 % depending on the model and the altitude. The MMM performs best, within ±8 % for most locations and seasons. However, nearly all models overestimate O3 near the tropopause (∼300 hPa or ∼8 km), likely due to ongoing issues with underestimating the altitude of the tropopause and excessive downward transport of stratospheric O3 at high latitudes. For example, the MMM is biased high by about 20 % at Eureka. Observed and simulated O3 precursors (CO, NOx, and reservoir PAN) are evaluated throughout the troposphere. Models underestimate wintertime CO everywhere, likely due to a combination of underestimating CO emissions and possibly overestimating OH. Throughout the vertical profile (compared to aircraft measurements), the MMM underestimates both CO and NOx but overestimates PAN. Perhaps as a result of competing deficiencies, the MMM O3 matches the observed O3 reasonably well. Our findings suggest that despite model updates over the last decade, model results are as highly variable as ever and have not increased in accuracy for representing Arctic tropospheric O3.

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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0310.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4550.422

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.

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→