Modelling aerosol concentration distributions from transient (puff) sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A field trial involving 50 separate releases of inert aerosol (kaolin) was conducted to determine the concentration distribution within aerosol puffs resulting from near-instantaneous releases. Atmospheric conditions during the trial fell within Pasquill stability classes A and B (very and moderately unstable, respectively). Aerosol concentration measurements were made using a scanning lidar system operating at 1·06 μm. Artificial neural network (ANN) models were developed using the data to predict concentration distributions, given a number of meteorological parameters. The ANN predictions were compared to those from traditional Gaussian puff models, and provided better predictions than the Gaussian model parameterizations examined. The ANN models were also used to develop Gaussian fitting parameters to replace traditional Pasquill and Slade dispersion coefficients. The ANN-derived dispersion coefficients provided better predictions of measured puff concentration distributions than either the Pasquill or Slade parameterizations, though the full multi-input ANN models provided even better predictions than the Gaussian puff model using ANN-derived dispersion coefficients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".