MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1597301243 · doi:10.1029/2003gl018999

How efficient is cloud droplet formation of organic aerosols?

2004· article· en· W1597301243 on OpenAlexafffund
Ulrike Lohmann, K. Broekhuizen, W. R. Leaitch, N. C. Shantz, Jonathan P. D. Abbatt

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsSupersaturationAerosolNucleationAmmonium sulfateAdipic acidCloud condensation nucleiSulfateChemistryEnvironmental chemistryChemical engineeringAtmospheric sciencesOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on laboratory findings that small amounts of a soluble aerosol, such as ammonium sulfate (AS), drastically decrease the activation diameter of moderately soluble organic aerosols, we performed studies with an adiabatic parcel model for cloud droplet nucleation. Moderately soluble organics, such as adipic acid (AA), which represents a class of partially soluble aerosols as found in atmospheric aerosols, require a larger supersaturation and result in fewer cloud droplets as compared to pure AS and vice versa when compared to a completely insoluble species such as dust. Adding only 10% AS to AA dramatically increases its ability to become activated resulting in 36–92% of the cloud droplets that would be obtained from pure AS, whereas the droplet concentration in the almost pure AA aerosol is only 11–47% of that of AS. Addition of a surface active species, such as nonanoic acid, instead of AS to AA reduces its activated fraction by 3–34% as compared to the AA/AS system.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations73
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207