MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171618938 · doi:10.1080/10406630490460610

SMOG CHAMBER STUDY OF ACENAPHTHENE: GAS/PARTICLE PARTITION MEASUREMENTS OF THE PRODUCTS FORMED BY REACTION WITH THE OH RADICAL

2004· article· en· W2171618938 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Sauret-Szczepanski, Douglas A. Lane

Bibliographic record

VenuePolycyclic aromatic compounds · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcenaphtheneChemistryParticle (ecology)Extraction (chemistry)Gas phaseAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ParticulatesChromatographyOrganic chemistryNaphthalene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the gas/particle partitioning of the products of the reaction of acenaphthene with the OH radical in a 10 m 3 smog chamber using multichannel, annular, diffusion denuders. The results showed that most of the products are predominantly in the particulate phase. Only four compounds, such as nitroacenaphthene, preferred the gas phase. We expect that the majority of the oxidation products would be adsorbed onto atmospheric particles. A comparison of solid-phase microextraction (SPME) and denuder sampling showed that the SPME syringe takes a representative sample of both gaseous and particulate phases and therefore cannot be used to determine the gas/particle partitioning ratios of the products. Another interesting result of this study showed that methanol cannot be used for sample extraction because this solvent reacts with some of the oxidation products of acenaphthene (probably the epoxide compounds) to produce artifacts that could lead to a misinterpretation of the actual atmospheric reactions.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolycyclic aromatic compoundsSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207