Observations of a Correlation Between Primary Particle and Aggregate Size for Soot Particles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For decades, soot has been modeled as fractal-like aggregates of nearly equiaxed spherules. Cluster–cluster aggregation simulations, starting from a population of primary particles, give rise to structures that closely match real aerosols of solid particles produced in flames. In such simulations, primary particle size is uncorrelated with aggregate size, as all aggregates contain primary particles drawn from the same population. Aerosol measurements have been interpreted with this geometric model. Examination of transmission electron micrographs of soot samples from various sources shows that primary particle sizes are not well mixed within an aerosol population. Larger aggregates tend to contain larger primary particles and the variation in size is much larger between aggregates than within aggregates. The soot sources considered here are all substantially not well-mixed (aircraft jet engine, inverted diffusion flame, gasoline direct injection engine, heavy-duty compression ignition engine). The observed variations in primary particle size can be explained if soot aggregates are formed and grew by coagulation in small zones of the combustion chamber, prior to dilution and transport (with minimal coagulation) to the sampling system.Copyright 2014 American Association for Aerosol Research
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".