Spring and summer contrast in new particle formation over nine forest areas in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Recent laboratory chamber studies indicate a significant role for highly oxidized low-volatility organics in new particle formation (NPF), but the actual role of these highly oxidized low-volatility organics in atmospheric NPF remains uncertain. Here, particle size distributions (PSDs) measured in nine forest areas in North America are used to characterize the occurrence and intensity of NPF and to evaluate model simulations using an empirical formulation in which formation rate is a function of the concentrations of sulfuric acid and low-volatility organics from alpha-pinene oxidation (Nucl-Org), and using an ion-mediated nucleation mechanism (excluding organics) (Nucl-IMN). On average, NPF occurred on ~ 70 % of days during March for the four forest sites with springtime PSD measurements, while NPF occurred on only ~ 10 % of days in July for all nine forest sites. Both Nucl-Org and Nucl-IMN schemes capture the observed high frequency of NPF in spring, but the Nucl-Org scheme significantly overpredicts while the Nucl-IMN scheme slightly underpredicts NPF and particle number concentrations in summer. Statistical analyses of observed and simulated ultrafine particle number concentrations and frequency of NPF events indicate that the scheme without organics agrees better overall with observations. The two schemes predict quite different nucleation rates (including their spatial patterns), concentrations of cloud condensation nuclei, and aerosol first indirect radiative forcing in North America, highlighting the need to reduce NPF uncertainties in regional and global earth system models.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".