MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387729446 · doi:10.1007/s10661-023-11771-z

Inter-comparison of measurements of inorganic chemical components in precipitation from NADP and CAPMoN at collocated sites in the USA and Canada during 1986–2019

2023· article· en· W4387729446 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jian Feng, Amanda Cole, Gregory A. Wetherbee, Kulbir Banwait

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationAcid depositionDeposition (geology)Acid rainEnvironmental monitoringComparabilityAir pollutionSampling (signal processing)Atmospheric sciencesEnvironmental chemistryMeteorologyGeographyEnvironmental engineeringEcologyChemistrySoil scienceSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wet deposition monitoring is a critical part of the long-term monitoring of acid deposition, which aims to assess the ecological impact of anthropogenic emissions of SO 2 and NO x . In North America, long-term wet deposition has been monitored through two national networks: the Canadian Air and Precipitation Monitoring Network (CAPMoN) and the US National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), for Canada and the USA, respectively. In order to assess the comparability of measurements from the two networks, collocated measurements have been made at two sites, one in each country, since 1986 (Sirois et al., in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 62 , 273–303, 2000; Wetherbee et al., in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 1995–2004, 2010). In this study, we compared the measurements from NADP and CAPMoN instrumentation at the collocated sites at the Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), USA, from 1989 to 2016, and Frelighsburg, Quebec, Canada, from 2002 to 2019. We also included in the study the collocated daily-vs-weekly measurements by the CAPMoN network during 1999–2001 and 2016–2017 in order to evaluate the differences in wet concentration of ions due to sampling frequency alone. The study serves as an extension to two previous CAPMoN-NADP inter-comparisons by Sirois et al. ( Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 62 , 273–303, 2000) and Wetherbee et al., in ( Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 1995–2004, 2010). At the Penn State University site, for 1986–2019, CAPMoN was higher than NADP for all ions, in terms of weekly concentration, precipitation-weighted annual mean concentration, and annual wet deposition. The precipitation-weighted annual mean concentrations were higher for SO 4 2− (2%), NO 3 − (12%), NH 4 + (16%), H + (6%), and base cations and Cl − (11–15%). For annual wet deposition, CAPMoN was higher for SO 4 −2 , NO 3 − , NH 4 + and H + (5–17%), and base cations and Cl − (12–17%) during 1986–2019. At the Frelighsburg site, NADP changed the sample collector in October 2011. For 2002–2011, the relative differences at the Frelighsburg site were positive and similar in magnitude to those at the Penn State site. For 2012–2019, the precipitation-weighted annual mean concentrations were 5–27% lower than NADP, except for H + , which was 23% higher. The change in sample collector by NADP had the largest effect on between-network biases. The comparisons of daily-vs-weekly measurements conducted by the CAPMoN network during 1999–2001 and 2016–2017 show that the weekly measurements were higher than the daily measurements by 1–3% for SO 4 2− , NO 3 − , and NH 4 + ; 3–9% for Ca 2+ , Mg 2+ , Na + , and Cl − ; 10–24% for K + ; and lower for H + by 8–30% in terms of precipitation-weighted mean concentration. Thus, differences in sampling frequencies did not contribute to the systematically higher CAPMoN measurements. Understanding the biases in the data for these networks is important for interpretation of continental scale deposition models and transboundary comparison of wet deposition trends.

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 score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.242
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Monitoring and AssessmentSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207