MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077650774 · doi:10.1029/2003gl017861

High aerosol optical depth biomass burning events: A comparison of optical properties for different source regions

2003· article· en· W2077650774 on OpenAlexaff
T. F. Eck, B. N. Holben, Jeffrey S. Reid, Norman T. O’Neill, J. S. Schafer, Оleg Dubovik, A. Smirnov, Márcia Akemi Yamasoe, Paulo Artaxo

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAERONETAerosolSingle-scattering albedoSmokeEnvironmental scienceOptical depthAtmospheric sciencesAlbedo (alchemy)Effective radiusCombustionBorealBiomass (ecology)PeatTaigaScatteringMeteorologyGeologyOpticsChemistryPhysicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The optical properties of aerosols such as smoke from biomass burning vary due to aging processes and these particles reach larger sizes at high concentrations. We compare the spectra of aerosol optical depth (τ a ), column‐integrated volume size distributions, refractive indices, and single scattering albedo retrieved from AERONET observations for four selected events of very high smoke optical depth (τ a ∼ 2 at 500 nm). Two case studies are from tropical biomass burning regions (Brazil and Zambia) and two are cases of boreal forest and peat fire smoke transported long distances to sites in the US and Moldova. Smoke properties for these extreme events can be significantly different from those reported in more typical plumes. In particular, large differences in smoke fine mode particle radius (∼0.17 to 0.25 μm) and single scattering albedo (∼0.88 to 0.99 at 440 nm) were observed as a result of differences in fuels burned, combustion phase, and aging.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations241
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207