An inverse modeling procedure to determine particle growth and nucleation rates from measured aerosol size distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Classical nucleation theory is unable to explain the ubiquity of nucleation events observed in the atmosphere. This shows a need for an empirical determination of the nucleation rate. Here we present a novel inverse modeling procedure to determine particle nucleation and growth rates based on consecutive measurements of the aerosol size distribution. The particle growth rate is determined by regression analysis of the measured change in the aerosol size distribution over time, taking into account the effects of processes such as coagulation, deposition and/or dilution. This allows the growth rate to be determined with a higher time-resolution than can be deduced from inspecting contour plots ("banana-plots''). Knowing the growth rate as a function of time enables the evaluation of the time of nucleation of measured particles of a certain size. The nucleation rate is then obtained by integrating the particle losses from time of measurement to time of nucleation. The regression analysis can also be used to determine or verify the optimum value of other parameters of interest, such as the wall loss or coagulation rate constants. As an example, the method is applied to smog chamber measurements. This program offers a powerful interpretive tool to study empirical aerosol population dynamics in general, and nucleation and growth in particular.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".