MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122522104 · doi:10.1029/2010jc006539

Observations of the sensitivity of beam attenuation to particle size in a coastal bottom boundary layer

2011· article· en· W2122522104 on OpenAlexaff
Paul S. Hill, Emmanuel Boss, John P. Newgard, Brent Law, Timothy G. Milligan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans CanadaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlingParticle sizeAttenuationParticle-size distributionEnvironmental scienceMineralogyMaterials scienceOpticsPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[1] The goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that the aggregated state of natural marine particles constrains the sensitivity of optical beam attenuation to particle size. An instrumented bottom tripod was deployed at the 12-m node of the Martha's Vineyard Coastal Observatory to monitor particle size distributions, particle size-versus-settling-velocity relationships, and the beam attenuation coefficient (cp) in the bottom boundary layer in September 2007. An automated in situ filtration system on the tripod collected 24 direct estimates of suspended particulate mass (SPM) during each of five deployments. On a sampling interval of 5 min, data from a Sequoia Scientific LISST 100x Type B were merged with data from a digital floc camera to generate suspended particle volume size distributions spanning diameters from approximately 2 μm to 4 cm. Diameter-dependent densities were calculated from size-versus-settling-velocity data, allowing conversion of the volume size distributions to mass distributions, which were used to estimate SPM every 5 min. Estimated SPM and measured cp from the LISST 100x were linearly correlated throughout the experiment, despite wide variations in particle size. The slope of the line, which is the ratio of cp to SPM, was 0.22 g m−2. Individual estimates of cp:SPM were between 0.2 and 0.4 g m−2 for volumetric median particle diameters ranging from 10 to 150 μm. The wide range of values in cp:SPM in the literature likely results from three factors capable of producing factor-of-two variability in the ratio: particle size, particle composition, and the finite acceptance angle of commercial beam-transmissometers.

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)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations96
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207