MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124404091 · doi:10.1039/b709193a

Temperature dependence of the NO3 absorption cross-section above 298 K and determination of the equilibrium constant for NO3 + NO2↔ N2O5 at atmospherically relevant conditions

2007· article· en· W2124404091 on OpenAlexaff
Hans D. Osthoff, Michael J. Pilling, A. R. Ravishankara, Steven S. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Chemistry Chemical Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsConstant (computer programming)Absorption (acoustics)Absorption cross sectionThermodynamicsSection (typography)Equilibrium constantCross section (physics)ChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)PhysicsEnvironmental chemistryOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reaction NO3 + NO2 <--> N2O5 was studied over the 278-323 K temperature range. Concentrations of NO3, N2O5, and NO2 were measured simultaneously in a 3-channel cavity ring-down spectrometer. Equilibrium constants were determined over atmospherically relevant concentration ranges of the three species in both synthetic samples in the laboratory and ambient air samples in the field. A fit to the laboratory data yielded Keq = (5.1 +/- 0.8) x 10(-27) x e((10871 +/- 46)/7) cm3 molecule(-1). The temperature dependence of the NO3 absorption cross-section at 662 nm was investigated over the 298-388 K temperature range. The line width was found to be independent of temperature, in agreement with previous results. New data for the peak cross section (662.2 nm, vacuum wavelength) were combined with previous measurements in the 200 K-298 K region. A least-squares fit to the combined data gave sigma = [(4.582 +/- 0.096) - (0.00796 +/- 0.00031) x T] x 10(-17) cm2 molecule(-1).

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations76
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Chemistry Chemical PhysicsSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207