Laboratory studies of ice formation via deposition mode nucleation onto mineral dust and n‐hexane soot samples
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory studies are described whereby the heterogeneous ice nucleating ability of various dust samples was studied for particles mounted on a hydrophobic cold stage. Ice formation is observed using digital photography. The relative humidity with respect to ice (RH i ) and temperature conditions of the flow system are validated by observing (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 deliquescence. Four types of solid mineral samples, including authentic Saharan dust and commercial samples of alumina, silica, and montmorillonite, were investigated in the deposition freezing mode. The size of the dust particles ranged from 0.5 to 5 μm, and the temperature range was from 263 to 218 K. With roughly 10 4 particles present on the cold stage, the onset for ice formation was observed at low RHs, between 102 and 108% RH i , for all samples and temperatures. This indicates that deposition mode nucleation is an efficient mode of ice formation, particularly under the cold temperatures prevalent in the cirrus regime. By contrast, ice deposition onto n‐hexane soot particles was not nearly so efficient. Nucleation rates are calculated as a function of RH i from experiments conducted with Saharan dust, where we measured the dependence of the onset RH i on total dust surface area.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it