Assessing the relative impacts of satellite ozone and its precursor observations to improve global tropospheric ozone analysis using multiple chemical reanalysis systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical reanalysis products have been produced by integrating various satellite observational data to provide comprehensive information on atmospheric composition. Five global chemical reanalysis datasets were used to evaluate the relative impacts of assimilating satellite ozone and its precursor measurements on surface and free-tropospheric ozone analyses for the year 2010. Observing system experiments (OSEs) were conducted with multiple reanalysis systems under similar settings to evaluate the impacts of reanalysis system selection on the quantification of observing system values. Without data assimilation, large discrepancies remained among the control runs owing to model biases. Data assimilation improved the consistency among the systems, reducing the standard deviation by 72 %–88 % in the lower troposphere through the lower stratosphere, while improving agreement with independent ozonesonde observations. The OSEs suggested the importance of precursor measurements, especially from tropospheric NO 2 columns, for improving ozone analysis in the lower troposphere, with varying influences among the systems (increases in global lower-tropospheric ozone by 0.1 % in GEOS-Chem and 7 % in Tropospheric Chemistry Reanalysis version 2 (TCR-2), with only NO 2 assimilation). Adjustments made by direct ozone assimilation showed similar vertical patterns between the TCR-2 and IASI-r systems, with increases of 6 %–22 % and decreases of 2 %–21 % in the middle and upper troposphere, respectively, reflecting the biases of the forecast models. These results suggest the importance of considering the effects of the forecast model performance and data assimilation configurations when assessing the observing system impacts to provide unbiased evaluations of satellite systems and to guide the design of future observing systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".