MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415449379 · doi:10.1029/2025jd043489

Evaluation of Modeled Carbon Monoxide and Methane Columns in the High Arctic Using TCCON Measurements

2025· article· en· W4415449379 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Erin McGee, Kimberly Strong, Kaley A. Walker, Cynthia Whaley, Rigel Kivi, Justus Notholt, G.L. Cassidy, S. R. Beagley, Rong‐You Chien, Srdan Dobricic, Xinyi Dong, Joshua S. Fu, Michael Gauss, Wanmin Gong, Joakim Langner, Kathy S. Law, Louis Marelle, Tatsuo Onishi, Naga Oshima, David A. Plummer, Luca Pozzoli, Jean‐Christophe Raut, Svetlana Tsyro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEnvironmental Restoration and Conservation AgencyGrand Équipement National De Calcul IntensifMinistry of the Environment, Government of JapanCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesCanadian Space AgencyDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMethaneArcticGreenhouse gasTrace gasOzoneCarbon monoxideCarbon dioxideAtmosphere (unit)The arctic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Methane (CH 4 ) and carbon monoxide (CO) are gases with important climate impacts as direct and indirect greenhouse gases, respectively. Methane has a warming potential 28 times that of carbon dioxide on a 100‐year timescale, and carbon monoxide is a precursor to ozone in the troposphere. Modeling trace gas concentrations in the Arctic atmosphere can be challenging due to Arctic conditions and sensitivity to long‐range transport, and comparing model outputs to remote sensing measurements is essential for ensuring that models are performing well. Ground‐based Arctic measurements are spatially sparse, so it is important to make use of all such available data sets. In this study, we assess eight atmospheric models, comparing their simulations of atmospheric CO and CH 4 column‐averaged dry‐air mole fractions for 2014 and 2015 with ground‐based retrievals of these species at three Arctic stations in the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON). The multi‐model mean had mean biases (± one standard deviation of the mean) of −5.4% ± 8% at Eureka, Canada, −6.5% ± 8% at Ny‐Ålesund, Norway, and −11% ± 7% at Sodankylä, Finland for CO, and mean biases of −0.25% ± 0.5% at Eureka, −0.90% ± 0.5% at Ny‐Ålesund, and −1.0% ± 0.5% at Sodankylä for CH 4 . Individual model mean biases range from −33% to +35% for CO and −2.5% to +1.9% for CH 4 . These results indicate that models could benefit from improvements targeting simulations of Arctic CO.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→