Regional haze in Wisconsin: sources and the spatial distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The atmospheric fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) chemical composition and the light scattering coefficient were measured at a rural air monitoring site in Wisconsin between September 2001 and August 2002 to understand the source of regional haze in the area. The average fine particle mass concentration, was 10.8 µg/m 3 over this time period and was 27.2% organic material, 2.4% elemental carbon, 34.2% ammonium sulfate, 31.6% ammonium nitrate, 3.7% soil, and 1.8% non-soil trace elements. Ammonium sulfate, organic matter, and soil were highest during the summer period while ammonium nitrate was highest during the winter. Elemental carbon peaked in the fall while the trace elements did not vary significantly. These trends were also observed at an urban Milwaukee site. A comparison of spring 2002 data between sites distributed across Wisconsin revealed a similar relative chemical composition, though absolute concentrations varied significantly. The average measured light scattering coefficient (b sp ) at the rural sampling site was 53 ± 1 Mm –1 . The PM 2.5 mass and the measured b sp showed good correlation with an R 2 of 0.84. The average chemical composition of the particulate matter was used to calculate b sp and the resulting values agree well with the measured b sp , though not as well as the PM 2.5 mass, giving a regression slope of 1.06 and an R 2 of 0.72. Key words: PM 2.5 chemical speciation, light scattering coefficient, visibility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".