MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028926475 · doi:10.1029/2007jd009732

Cloud processing of nitrate

2008· article· en· W2028926475 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine Hayden, A. M. Macdonald, D. Toom‐Sauntry, K. G. Anlauf, Amy Leithead, Shao‐Meng Li, W. R. Leaitch, K. Noone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNitrateSulfateAerosolLiquid water contentEnvironmental scienceParticulatesParticle (ecology)Atmospheric sciencesEnvironmental chemistryCloud computingChemistryMineralogyMeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of clouds in the transport and transformation of tropospheric pollutants was investigated through airborne measurements made out of Cleveland, Ohio, from 21 July to 18 August 2004, as part of the International Consortium for Atmospheric Research on Transport and Transformation 2004 program. Observations of gas‐phase nitrate, size‐resolved particulate nitrate, cloud water nitrate, and size‐distributed cloud residual nitrate are used to examine changes in the partitioning of nitrate from precloud to postcloud as a function of particle size. The [NO3−]/[SO42−] ratio was highest in the bulk cloud water and higher in the cloud droplet residuals compared with the below‐cloud aerosols. Most of the nitrate entered the cloud water as HNO3, and in 30% of 43 size distributions examined, the nitrate in the cloud droplets was found in residual particle sizes smaller than those of sulfate. Simulations from a trace gas‐aerosol‐cloud parcel model show that this size difference results from differences in the processes by which nitrate and sulfate enter cloud water. The transfer of HNO3 to cloud droplets is governed primarily by gas‐phase mass transfer to the droplets, leading to greater accumulation in the smaller, more numerous droplets with higher total surface area. In contrast, much of the sulfate in the cloud water is the result of nucleation scavenging, which distributes the sulfate mass toward slightly larger sizes. The extent of separation between nitrate and sulfate is dependent on the cloud base sulfate size distribution and the factors that govern both HNO3 and SO2 uptake, with subsequent S(IV) oxidation.

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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations80
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207