MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380090652 · doi:10.5194/acp-23-6299-2023

The (mis)identification of high-latitude dust events using remote sensing methods in the Yukon, Canada: a sub-daily variability analysis

2023· article· en· W4380090652 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rosemary Huck, Robert G. Bryant, James King

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Sheffield
KeywordsAERONETEnvironmental scienceMineral dustLatitudeRemote sensingAerosolMeteorologySatellitePlumeAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyGeologyGeographyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The observation and quantification of mineral dust fluxes from high-latitude sources remains difficult due to a known paucity of year-round in situ observations and known limitations of satellite remote sensing data (e.g. cloud cover and dust detection). Here we explore the chronology of dust emissions at a known and instrumented high-latitude dust source: Lhù'ààn Mân (Kluane Lake) in Yukon, Canada. At this location we use oblique time-lapse (RC) cameras as a baseline for analysis of aerosol retrievals from in situ metrological data, AERONET, and co-incident MODIS MAIAC to (i) investigate the daily to annual chronology of dust emissions recorded by these instrumental and remote sensing methods (at timescales ranging from minutes to years) and (ii) use data intercomparisons to comment on the principal factors that control the detection of dust in each case. Lhù'ààn Mân is a prolific mineral dust source; on 24 May 2018 the RC captured dust in motion throughout the entire day, with the longest dust-free period lasting only 30 min. When compared with time series of RC data, optimized AERONET data only manage an overall 26 % detection rate for events (sub-day) but 100 % detection rate for dust event days (DEDs) when dust was within the field of view. In this instance, RC and remote sensing data were able to suggest that the low event detection rate was attributed to fundamental variations in dust advection trajectory, dust plume height, and inherent restrictions in sun angle at high latitudes. Working with a time series of optimized aerosol optical depth (AOD) data (covering 2018/2019), we were able to investigate the gross impacts of data quality (DQ) choice on DED detection at the month or year scale. Relative to ground observations, AERONET's DQ2.0 cloud-screening algorithm may remove as much as 97 % of known dust events (3 % detection). Finally, when undertaking an AOD comparison for DED and non-DED retrievals, we find that cloud screening of MODIS/AERONET lead to a combined low sample of co-incident dust events and weak correlations between retrievals. Our results quantify and explain the extent of under-representation of dust in both ground and space remote sensing methods; this is a factor that impacts on the effective calibration and validation of global climate and dust models.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207