MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044371290 · doi:10.1021/jp908661m

Ice Nucleation onto Arizona Test Dust at Cirrus Temperatures: Effect of Temperature and Aerosol Size on Onset Relative Humidity

2009· article· en· W2044371290 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zamin A. Kanji, Jonathan P. D. Abbatt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce nucleusAerosolRelative humidityChemistrySaturation (graph theory)CirrusNucleationParticle sizeParticle (ecology)Atmospheric temperature rangeAtmospheric sciencesMineralogyMeteorologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The University of Toronto Continuous Flow Diffusion Chamber (UT-CFDC) was used to study ice formation onto monodisperse Arizona Test Dust (ATD) particles. The onset relative humidity with respect to ice (RH(i)) was measured as a function of temperature in the range 251-223 K for 100 nm ATD particles. It was found that for 0.1% of the particles to freeze, water saturation was required at all temperatures except 223 K where particles activated at RH(i) below water saturation. At this temperature, where deposition mode freezing is occurring, we find that the larger the particle size, the lower the onset RH(i). We also demonstrate that the total number of particles present may influence the onset RH(i) observed. The surface area for ice activation, aerosol size, and temperature must all be considered when reporting onset values of ice formation onto ATD mineral dust particles. In addition, we calculate nucleation rates and contact angles of ice germs with ATD aerosols which indicate that there exists a range of active sites on the surface with different efficiencies for activating ice formation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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

Citations82
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207