MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035699424 · doi:10.1139/p03-004

Ice nucleation by kerosene soot under upper tropospheric conditions

2003· article· en· W2035699424 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. Suzanne, Daniel Ferry, O. B. Popovitcheva, Natalia K. Shonija

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSootIce nucleusAmorphous solidContext (archaeology)TroposphereNucleationCirrusAmorphous icePhysicsRelative humidityAtmospheric sciencesCrystallographyThermodynamicsChemistryPhysical chemistryCombustionGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quasi-elastic neutron scattering (QENS) and neutron diffraction (ND) experiments were conducted to characterize the dynamics and structure of water/ice confined in a well-defined kerosene-soot pores network at 40, 60, and 100% relative humidity and at temperatures from 283 to 204 K. The QENS spectra indicate that about 35% of the adsorbed water is in an amorphous solid-like state at T = 283 K and that an appreciable amount of liquid water exists in the soot supermicropores down to the lowest temperature investigated, i.e., 204 K. The depression in freezing temperature is related to the pore dimensions. At T [Formula: see text] 260 K ND shows a mixture of amorphous ice, probably located in the soot mesopores coexisting with ice Ih at the surface of the soot primary particles. The results are discussed within the context of aircraft-generated soot aerosols in the upper troposphere as candidates for heterogeneous ice nucleation responsible for contrails and cirrus formation. PACS Nos.: 82.33Tb, 92.60Mt, 81.05Rm, 61.12-q

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207