MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Arctic Tropospheric Ozone Trends

2023· preprint· en· W4321371346 on OpenAlexaff
Kathy S. Law, J. Hjorth, Jakob Pernov, Cynthia Whaley, Henrik Skov, Martine Collaud Coen, Joakim Langner, S. R. Arnold, D. W. Tarasick, Jesper Heile Christensen, Makoto Deushi, Peter Effertz, G. Faluvegi, Michael Gauss, Ulaş İm, Naga Oshima, Irina Petropavlovskikh, David A. Plummer, Kostas Tsigaridis, Svetlana Tsyro, Sverre Solberg, Steven T. Turnock

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsGovernment of CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEurostarsLangley Research Center
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceArcticTroposphereTropospheric ozoneOzoneClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesThe arcticMeteorologyGeographyOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trends in tropospheric ozone, an important air pollutant and short-lived climate forcer (SLCF), are estimated using available surface and ozonesonde profile data for 1993-2019. Using a coherent methodology, observed trends are compared to modeled trends (1995-2015) from the Arctic Monitoring Assessment Programme SLCF 2021 assessment. Statistically significant increases in observed surface ozone at Arctic coastal sites, notably during winter, and concurrent decreasing trends in surface carbon monoxide, are generally captured by multi-model median (MMM) trends. Wintertime increases are also estimated in the free troposphere at most Arctic sites, but tend to be overestimated by the MMMs. Springtime surface ozone increases in northern coastal Alaska are not simulated while negative springtime trends in northern Scandinavia are not always reproduced. Possible reasons for observed changes and model behavior are discussed, including decreasing precursor emissions, changing ozone sinks, and variability in large-scale meteorology.

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)0.001
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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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