Analysis of size, time, and compositionally resolved aerosols in Detroit, Michigan, Feb. 25 - April 10, 2002
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: Aerosols were collected and analyzed as a function of size, time/and compositionally resolved aerosols in Detroit, Michigan, Feb. 25 – April 10, 2002 as a test of rotating drum sampler capabilities, in parallel with an ongo ing test of toxic metals at the site, and to provide potential source signatures from aerosols transported regionally in the Great Lakes area. Particles were collected in three size modes, 2.5 > Dp > 1.15, 1.15 > Dp > 0.34, and 0.34 > Dp > 0.1 micrometers in diameter by a rotating drum impactor (DELTA 3 DRUM). Samples were collected onto greased Mylar substrates with close to 100% of all samples successfully collected. The sample strips were analyzed in 3 hour increments for mass (by soft beta gauge), optical attenuation (320 – 820 nm) and elements sodium and heavier (synchrotron x-ray fluorescence S-XRF). A number of assurance tests were made, which were included in the “DRUM Quality Assurance Protocol version 8/02)” (August, 2002). The results show a site with sharp plumes of compositionally complex aerosols well resolved in size and time. Plumes were associated with minor and trace elements and tracked via HYSPLIT isentropic trajectories to source regions in the area (including Canada) and LADCO receptor areas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".