MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Receptor Modeling for Elemental Source Contributions to Fine Aerosols in New York State

2000· article· en· W1978783281 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Ames, Gülen Güllü, Jack L. Beal, İ. Ölmez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNew York State Department of Environmental ConservationU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsNeutron activation analysisEnrichment factorEnvironmental scienceSampling (signal processing)PollutionEnvironmental chemistryParticulatesTrace elementAir pollutionTRACE (psycholinguistics)AerosolAtmospheric sciencesMineralogyChemistryMeteorologyGeologyGeographyRadiochemistryHeavy metalsEngineeringFilter (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fine atmospheric particulate material was collected at five sites in upstate New York and analyzed for its trace element composition by instrumental neutron activation analysis. Of the 3700 daily samples collected over a 2-yr period, 1459 were analyzed for 39 elements, providing a large and detailed data set. Factor analysis (FA) was used to identify potential pollution sources or source regions and to construct inorganic source profiles for each. Following FA, the method of absolute factor scores-multiple linear regression was used to estimate the absolute elemental contribution of each of the identified sources. Factor analysis identified nine sources impacting the sampling region. Seven of these were found to be present in varying degrees among of the sampling sites. The other two sources had more localized impacts and were observed at only one of the sites each. Regional sources (such as the midwestern United States and eastern Canada) and crustal/soil material accounted for the greatest amount of the trace elements measured in the collected material.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Air & Waste Management AssociationSame topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207