MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013356945 · doi:10.1002/2014gl061112

Cloud partitioning of isocyanic acid (HNCO) and evidence of secondary source of HNCO in ambient air

2014· article· en· W2013356945 on OpenAlexafffund
Ran Zhao, Alex K. Y. Lee, Jeremy J. B. Wentzell, Alastair McDonald, D. Toom‐Sauntry, W. R. Leaitch, Robin L. Modini, A. L. Corrigan, Lynn M. Russell, Kevin J. Noone, Jason C. Schroder, Allan K. Bertram, Lelia N. Hawkins, Jonathan P. D. Abbatt, John Liggio

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoCalifornia Institute of Technology
KeywordsIsocyanic acidEnvironmental scienceChemistryPhysicsAstrobiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although isocyanic acid (HNCO) may cause a variety of health issues via protein carbamylation and has been proposed as a key compound in smoke‐related health issues, our understanding of the atmospheric sources and fate of this toxic compound is currently incomplete. To address these issues, a field study was conducted at Mount Soledad, La Jolla, CA, to investigate partitioning of HNCO to clouds and fogs using an Acetate Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometer coupled to a ground‐based counterflow virtual impactor. The first field evidence of cloud partitioning of HNCO is presented, demonstrating that HNCO is dissolved in cloudwater more efficiently than expected based on the effective Henry's law solubility. The measurements also indicate evidence for a secondary, photochemical source of HNCO in ambient air at this site.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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