MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404711739 · doi:10.5194/gmd-17-8373-2024

Source-specific bias correction of US background and anthropogenic ozone modeled in CMAQ

2024· article· en· W4404711739 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. Nash Skipper, Christian Hogrefe, Barron H. Henderson, Rohit Mathur, Kristen M. Foley, Armistead G. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscientific model development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNuclear Safety and Security CommissionConocoPhillipsNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCMAQRange (aeronautics)OzoneAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyOzone layerMeteorologyGeographyPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. United States (US) background ozone (O3) is the counterfactual O3 that would exist with zero US anthropogenic emissions. Estimates of US background O3 typically come from chemical transport models (CTMs), but different models vary in their estimates of both background and total O3. Here, a measurement–model data fusion approach is used to estimate CTM biases in US anthropogenic O3 and multiple US background O3 sources, including natural emissions, long-range international emissions, short-range international emissions from Canada and Mexico, and stratospheric O3. Spatially and temporally varying bias correction factors adjust each simulated O3 component so that the sum of the adjusted components evaluates better against observations compared to unadjusted estimates. The estimated correction factors suggest a seasonally consistent positive bias in US anthropogenic O3 in the eastern US, with the bias becoming higher with coarser model resolution and with higher simulated total O3, though the bias does not increase much with higher observed O3. Summer average US anthropogenic O3 in the eastern US was estimated to be biased high by 2, 7, and 11 ppb (11 %, 32 %, and 49 %) for one set of simulations at 12, 36, and 108 km resolutions and 1 and 6 ppb (10 % and 37 %) for another set of simulations at 12 and 108 km resolutions. Correlation among different US background O3 components can increase the uncertainty in the estimation of the source-specific adjustment factors. Despite this, results indicate a negative bias in modeled estimates of the impact of stratospheric O3 at the surface, with a western US spring average bias of −3.5 ppb (−25 %) estimated based on a stratospheric O3 tracer. This type of data fusion approach can be extended to include data from multiple models to leverage the strengths of different data sources while reducing uncertainty in the US background ozone estimates.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscientific model developmentSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207