MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1610202149 · doi:10.1029/2005gl023317

Initial uptake of ozone on Saharan dust at atmospheric relative humidities

2005· article· en· W1610202149 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Chang, Ryan C. Sullivan, Jonathan P. D. Abbatt

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceOzoneAtmospheric dustRelative humidityMineral dustMeteorologyAerosolGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To better evaluate heterogeneous loss mechanisms for ozone in the atmosphere, the initial uptake kinetics of ozone on mineral dust surfaces was studied at room temperature under dry conditions and at elevated relative humidity. Ozone was added to a static absorption cell containing a glass tube coated with a thin film of Saharan dust collected from silt deposits on the Cape Verde Islands. Ozone concentrations were monitored by UV absorption at 254 nm, from which the reactive uptake coefficient in the first 10 s was calculated. An increase in initial ozone concentration from 2 × 1012 to 1 × 1014 cm−3 results in a decrease in the initial reactive uptake coefficient from 6 × 10−6 to 2 × 10−7, respectively, revealing a negative dependence of initial reactive uptake on initial ozone concentration. Simultaneously exposing the Saharan dust to ozone and water vapor at 50% and 75% relative humidity does not significantly change the initial reactive uptake coefficient.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations29
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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