MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396893403 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-48406-x

Stratospheric influence on surface ozone pollution in China

2024· article· en· W4396893403 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhixiong Chen, Jane Liu, Xiushu Qie, Xugeng Cheng, Mengmiao Yang, Lei Shu, Zhou Zang

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationFujian Normal UniversityChinese Academy of SciencesFudan UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaUniversity of TorontoNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsOzoneEnvironmental sciencePollutionAtmospheric sciencesChinaClimatologyMeteorologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Events of stratospheric intrusions to the surface (SITS) can lead to severe ozone (O 3 ) pollution. Still, to what extent SITS events impact surface O 3 on a national scale over years remains a long-lasting question, mainly due to difficulty of resolving three key SITS metrics: frequency, duration and intensity. Here, we identify 27,616 SITS events over China during 2015-2022 based on spatiotemporally dense surface measurements of O 3 and carbon monoxide, two effective indicators of SITS. An overview of the three metrics is presented, illustrating large influences of SITS on surface O 3 in China. We find that SITS events occur preferentially in high-elevation regions, while those in plain regions are more intense. SITS enhances surface O 3 by 20 ppbv on average, contributing to 30-45% of O 3 during SITS periods. Nationally, SITS-induced O 3 peaks in spring and autumn, while over 70% of SITS events during the warm months exacerbate O 3 pollution. Over 2015-2022, SITS-induced O 3 shows a declining trend. Our observation-based results can have implications for O 3 mitigation policies in short and long terms.

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 score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations46
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207