- Who runs it
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Can it affect people?
- Possibly. It may shape what people see, are recommended, flagged, or prioritised for.
- Possible rights impact: Indirect public effect
How much do we know?
A source is a published page or document behind a claim. The label measures what is documented, not whether a system is good or safe. Missing information does not prove that a safeguard is missing.
Sources and further reading
- 2025 U.S. Federal Agency AI Use Case Inventory / U.S. Federal Agency AI Use Case Inventory / 2026-04-13
optional detailFull record and details
The interface and explanatory guides are translated. Record names, record descriptions, quotations, detailed editorial notes, and linked public documents stay in their published language so evidence is not silently changed.
What it does
Early data-driven analyses of ozone chemistry sensitivity primarily relied on "ratio-based" indicators to partially linearize the non-linear aspects of urban ozone chemistry, which are influenced by pollution levels, light, and water vapor. With the development of more sophisticated algorithms, including machine learning techniques capable of fitting high-dimensional non-linear functions, we have shown that a highly effective parameterization of net ozone production rates (PO3) can be achieved. This approach eliminates the need for empirical lineariza...
If this affects someone
agency-caio@mail.nasa.gov
Sources and further reading
First indexed from U.S. Federal Agency AI Use Case Inventory on 2026-09-03. Only usable fields from the public record are shown; missing answers remain blank.
Fields were mapped from the linked public record by deterministic code. No generative model wrote this text.
Facts to check
- Who runs it
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Life area
- Public sector
- Proof level
- Source-backed
- Footnotes
- 1
- updated
- 7 months ago
The score orders work, not people.
Review priority rises for rights-sensitive uses, missing sources, unanswered accountability fields, and old evidence. Strong official documentation lowers it. The score is not a verdict on safety, fairness, or legality.
A missing field means the attached public sources did not answer it. Coverage is uneven, publication does not prove performance, and a certificate has a defined boundary.
Previous versions
- Imported2 months agoPartialImported from U.S. Federal Agency AI Use Case Inventory.
Help check this record.
Add a public source, challenge a claim, or point out a missing way to reach a person.
A submitted name, email, description, source, or correction is used only to verify the record and prevent abuse. It is not published automatically.