MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386378796 · doi:10.3390/atmos14091383

The Influence of Meteorology Initialization on Ozone Forecasting in the Great Lakes Region during MOOSE Study

2023· article· en· W4386378796 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rabab Mashayekhi, Craig Stroud, Junhua Zhang, Oumarou Nikiema, Sandrine Trotechaud

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmosphere · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitializationOzoneEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyWind speedAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyComputer scienceGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the influence of meteorology initialization on surface ozone prediction in the Great Lakes region using Canada’s operational air quality model (GEM-MACH) at a 2.5 km horizontal resolution. Two different initialization techniques are compared, and it is found that the four-dimensional incremental analysis updating (IAU) method yields improved model performance for surface ozone prediction. The IAU run shows better ozone regression line statistics (y = 0.7x + 14.9, R2 = 0.2) compared to the non-IAU run (y = 0.6x + 23.1, R2 = 0.1), with improved MB and NMB values (3.9 ppb and 8.9%, respectively) compared to the non-IAU run (4.1 ppb and 9.3%). Furthermore, analyzing ozone prediction sensitivity to model initialization time reveals that the 18z initialization leads to enhanced performance, particularly during high ozone exceedance days, with an improved regression slope of 0.9 compared to 0.7 for the 00z and 12z runs. The MB also improves to −0.2 ppb in the 18z run compared to −2.8 ppb and −3.9 ppb for the 00z and 12z runs, respectively. The analysis of meteorological fields reveals that the improved ozone predictions at 18z are linked to a more accurate representation of afternoon wind speed. This improvement enhances the transport of ozone, contributing to the overall improvement in ozone predictions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmosphereSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207