MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086405819 · doi:10.1080/02786826.2013.805875

A Calibration Technique for Improving Refractive Index Retrieval from Aerosol Cavity Ring-Down Spectroscopy

2013· article· en· W2086405819 on OpenAlexaff
Justin Toole, Lindsay Renbaum-Wolff, G. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAerosol Science and Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalibrationAerosolExtinction (optical mineralogy)Particle (ecology)Cavity ring-down spectroscopySpectroscopyRefractive indexOpticsDifferential mobility analyzerMie scatteringChemistryComputational physicsPhysicsLight scatteringScatteringAbsorption spectroscopyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cavity ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS) is a technique that is commonly used to measure the extinction of light by aerosol particles in situ. This extinction, when normalized to particle concentration, yields the extinction cross section, a measure of a single particle's ability to scatter and absorb light. The complex index of refraction can then be retrieved by comparison of the extinction cross sections at several particle diameters with those predicted by Mie theory. This approach requires accurate determination of particle diameter and concentration as well as the length of the extinction region in the cavity, but it is often difficult to quantify the systematic errors in the measurements of these quantities. Here, we introduce a calibration technique using particles of a reference compound to account for these systematic errors. The two calibration parameters are: Cf , which scales the measured extinction cross sections, and Δd, which shifts the particle diameters. It is found that Cf correlates strongly with the condensation particle counter (CPC) used to measure particle concentration and that Δd is associated with the differential mobility analyzer (DMA) used to select particle diameters. Calibration is shown to reduce errors of subsequently-measured extinction cross sections of a test aerosol from 11% to with a concomitant improvement in the accuracy of the retrieved complex index of refraction and corresponding atmospheric radiative forcing estimates.

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)0.000
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAerosol Science and TechnologySame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207