CCN predictions using simplified assumptions of organic aerosol composition and mixing state: a synthesis from six different locations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. An accurate but simple quantification of the fraction of aerosol particles that can act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) is needed for implementation in large-scale models. Data on aerosol size distribution, chemical composition, and CCN concentration from six different locations have been analyzed to explore the extent to which simple assumptions of composition and mixing state of the organic fraction can reproduce measured CCN number concentrations. Fresher pollution aerosol as encountered in Riverside, CA, and the ship channel in Houston, TX, cannot be represented without knowledge of more complex (size-resolved) composition. For aerosol that has experienced processing (Mexico City, Holme Moss (UK), Point Reyes (CA), and Chebogue Point (Canada)), CCN can be predicted within a factor of two assuming either externally or internally mixed soluble organics although these simplified compositions/mixing states might not represent the actual properties of ambient aerosol populations, in agreement with many previous CCN studies in the literature. Under typical conditions, a factor of two uncertainty in CCN concentration due to composition assumptions translates to an uncertainty of ~15% in cloud drop concentration, which might be adequate for large-scale models given the much larger uncertainty in cloudiness.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".