A.: Surface ozone background in the United States: Canadian and Mexican pollution influences, Atmos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We use a global chemical transport model (GEOS-Chem) with 1ox1o horizontal resolution to quantify the effects of anthropogenic emissions from Canada, Mexico, and outside North America on daily maximum 8-h average ozone concentrations in U.S. surface air. Simulations for summer 2001 indicate mean North American and U.S. background concentrations of 26±8 ppb and 30±8 ppb, as obtained by shutting off anthropogenic emissions in North America vs. in the U.S. only. The U.S. background never exceeds 60 ppb in the model. The Canadian and Mexican pollution enhancement averages 3±4 ppb in the U.S. in summer but can be occasionally much higher in downwind regions of the Northeast and Southwest, peaking at 33 ppb in upstate New York (on a day with 75 ppb total ozone) and 18 ppb in southern California (on a day with 68 ppb total ozone). The model is successful in reproducing the observed variability of ozone in these regions, including the occurrence and magnitude of high-ozone episodes influenced by transboundary pollution. We find that exceedances of the 75 ppb U.S. air quality standard in eastern Michigan, western New York, New Jersey, and southern California are often associated with Canadian and Mexican pollution enhancements in excess of 10 ppb. Sensitivity simulations with 2020 emission projections suggest that Canadian pollution influence in the Northeast U.S. will be comparable in magnitude to that from domestic power plants. 2
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".