MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152387967 · doi:10.5194/acp-10-10923-2010

Sources of light-absorbing aerosol in arctic snow and their seasonal variation

2010· article· en· W2152387967 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D́ean A. Hegg, Stephen G. Warren, Thomas C. Grenfell

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationOak FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceArcticSnowAerosolBorealAtmospheric sciencesSeasonalityBiomass (ecology)Biomass burningTaigaPollutionClimatologyOceanographyMeteorologyGeographyEcologyGeologyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Two data sets consisting of measurements of light absorbing aerosols (LAA) in arctic snow together with suites of other corresponding chemical constituents are presented; the first from Siberia, Greenland and near the North Pole obtained in 2008, and the second from the Canadian arctic obtained in 2009. A preliminary differentiation of the LAA into black carbon (BC) and non-BC LAA is done. Source attribution of the light absorbing aerosols was done using a positive matrix factorization (PMF) model. Four sources were found for each data set (crop and grass burning, boreal biomass burning, pollution and marine). For both data sets, the crops and grass biomass burning was the main source of both LAA species, suggesting the non-BC LAA was brown carbon. Depth profiles at most of the sites allowed assessment of the seasonal variation in the source strengths. The biomass burning sources dominated in the spring but pollution played a more significant (though rarely dominant) role in the fall, winter and, for Greenland, summer. The PMF analysis is consistent with trajectory analysis and satellite fire maps.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.174 · 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.

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

Citations134
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207