MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7046613427

EFFICIENCY OF OZONE PRODUCTION IN THE HOUSTON PLUME.

2001· article· en· W7046613427 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiological and Environmental ResearchYork UniversityU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhoenixOzoneProduction (economics)Field (mathematics)Reactivity (psychology)Air pollution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ozone levels observed during a field campaign in Houston were significantly higher than that observed in Phoenix or Philadelphia. An examination of the slope of O{sub x} versus NO{sub z} in the urban plumes shows that NO{sub x} is used 2 to 3 times more efficiently in Houston as compared with Phoenix and Philadelphia. Representative values of OPEx are 7-12, 3, and 4, in Houston, Phoenix, and Philadelphia. Aircraft observations have been used to calculate P(O{sub 3})/P(NO{sub z}). Values in Houston are significantly higher than in Phoenix and Philadelphia. We show that P(O{sub 3})/P(NO{sub z}) is proportional to a VOC/NO{sub 2}-OH reactivity ratio. High values of P(O{sub 3})/P(NO{sub z}) in Houston are due to emissions of reactive olefins from the ship channel region. It is significant that high values of P(O{sub 3})/P(NO{sub z}) occur at NO{sub x} levels up to several 10's of ppb. Not only is the chemistry efficient but it will be long lasting. The occurrence of high NO{sub x} and high OPEx is fostered by the co-location of VOC and NO{sub x} sources in the Houston industrial areas.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.168 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→