Dynamics of the sulphate aerosol size distribution on a global scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parameterizations for size‐dependent aerosols have been implemented in the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM). This new model version considers comprehensive physical and chemical processes that are associated with the sulphate aerosol size distribution, including nucleation, condensation, hygroscopic growth, aqueous‐phase chemistry, and dry and wet deposition. Results from in situ surface and airborne observations and remote sensing were used to validate the model. The comparisons give evidence for realistic sulphate size distributions over the regions where sulphate is the dominant aerosol type. In agreement with earlier published studies, it is found in sensitivity tests that the global sulphate burden is predominantly affected by wet deposition. However, the mass size distribution is mainly affected by coagulation, condensation, and below‐cloud scavenging on the global scale. There is only weak sensitivity of the simulated mass size distribution to changes in in‐cloud oxidation and the efficiency of nucleation. It is shown that the low sensitivities are caused by a compensating effect of coagulation in the former and low sensitivity of the mass size distribution to changes in nucleation rate and condensation efficiency for the latter case.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".