MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4382939660 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2023-1161

Evaluating modelled tropospheric columns of CH <sub>4</sub> , CO and O <sub>3</sub> in the Arctic using ground-based FTIR measurements

2023· preprint· en· W4382939660 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Victoria Flood, Kimberly Strong, Cynthia Whaley, Kaley A. Walker, Thomas Blumenstock, James W. Hannigan, J. Mellqvist, Justus Notholt, Mathias Palm, Amelie N. Röhling, S. R. Arnold, S. R. Beagley, Rong‐You Chien, Jesper Heile Christensen, Makoto Deushi, Srdjan Dobričić, Xinyi Dong, Joshua S. Fu, Michael Gauss, Wanmin Gong, Joakim Langner, Kathy S. Law, Louis Marelle, Tatsuo Onishi, Naga Oshima, David A. Plummer, Luca Pozzoli, Jean‐Christophe Raut, Manu Anna Thomas, Svetlana Tsyro, Steven T. Turnock

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersEurostarsCanadian Space AgencyEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaMinistry of EnvironmentMinistry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and TourismCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesGovernment of CanadaGrand Équipement National De Calcul IntensifEnvironmental Restoration and Conservation AgencyNova Scotia Research Innovation TrustOntario Innovation Trust
KeywordsTroposphereTrace gasAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceArcticOzoneClimatologyTropospheric ozoneAtmospheric chemistryGreenhouse gasNorthern HemisphereMeteorologyGeographyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Both measurements and modelling of air pollution in the Arctic are difficult. Yet with the Arctic warming at nearly four times the global average rate, and changing emissions in and near the region, it is important to understand Arctic atmospheric composition and how it is changing. This study examines the simulations of atmospheric concentrations of methane, carbon monoxide and ozone in the Arctic by 11 models. Evaluations are performed using data from five high-latitude ground-based Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers in the Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC). Mixing ratios of trace gases are modelled at three-hourly intervals by CESM, CMAM, DEHM, EMEP MSC-W, GEM-MACH, GEOS-Chem, MATCH, MATCH-SALSA, MRI-ESM2, UKESM1 and WRF-Chem for the years 2008, 2009, 2014, and 2015. The comparisons focus on the troposphere (0–7 km partial columns) at Eureka, Canada; Thule, Greenland; Ny Ålesund, Norway; Kiruna, Sweden; and Harestua, Norway. Overall, the models are biased low in the tropospheric column, on average by -9.6 % for CH4, -21 % for CO and -18 % for O3. Results for CH4 are relatively consistent across the four years, whereas CO has a maximum negative bias in the spring and minimum in the summer, and O3 has a maximum difference centred around the summer. The average differences for the models are within the FTIR uncertainties for approximately 15 % of the model-location comparisons.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→