MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037818612

An Evaluation Of NAAPS During Canadian And U.S. East Coast Smoke Events In May And June 2023

2024· article· en· W7037818612 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAERONETAerosolSmokeLidarExtinction (optical mineralogy)Plume
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An unprecedented number of wildfires occurred across the Canadian mainland during May and June 2023 due to unusually hot and dry atmospheric conditions. As a result of these wildfires, smoke was transported over large areas of North America, posing significant threats to visibility, air quality, human health, and the economy. The global Navy Aerosol Analysis and Prediction System (NAAPS) model was the first model of its kind to predict global aerosol transport, including, among others, wildfire smoke. Operationally, NAAPS produces predictions of the horizontal and vertical distribution of smoke and how it diffuses through space and time. This study evaluates the performance of NAAPS by comparing vertically integrated aerosol optical depth (AOD) and vertical profiles of aerosol extinction with ground-based remote sensing observations from the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) and Micro-Pulse Lidar Network (MPLNET) at London, Ontario, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), and Appalachian State. The operational (OPS) and research (near-real-time; NRT) versions of NAAPS are analyzed at the analysis time for five separate events affecting the three locations. NAAPS captures the overall timing of aerosol loading at both sites, as indicated by peaks in AOD. There are instances where the timing of NAAPS differs from observations, however these instances are inconsistent and do not indicate that the model has a time bias. For all five events, average AOD measured by AERONET are 0.62, 0.72, and 0.42 at London-CDN, GSFC, and Appalachian\_State, respectively. The average AODs from NRT (OPS) NAAPS are 0.51, 0.54, and 0.42 (0.69, 0.74, and 0.49), respectively. When considering the event composite average for all three sites, NAAPS is able to reproduce the observed AOD to within ~20\%. However, for individual events, both versions of NAAPS can severely underestimate AOD during times of heavy aerosol loading by as much as ~80\%. On average, NAAPS fails to predict layers of smoke aloft and often overestimates aerosol extinction values near the surface. Given the inherent complexity of models like NAAPS, initial and boundary conditions are critical for yielding skillful predictions of aerosol transport; for example, accurate depictions of aerosol source regions and, in particular for smoke, injection height. The results of this study provide key contextual answers about how aerosol transport models can be improved.

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)0.001
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 score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)Same topicTime Series Analysis and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207