A Method to Quantitatively Apportion Pollutants at High Spatial and Temporal Resolution: The Stochastic Lagrangian Apportionment Method (SLAM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce a method to quantify upwind contributions to concentrations of atmospheric pollutants. The Stochastic Lagrangian Apportionment Method (SLAM) carries out the following: (1) account for chemical transformations and depositional losses; (2) incorporate the effects of turbulent dispersion; (3) simulate the locations of the sources with high spatial and temporal resolution; and (4) minimize the impact from numerical diffusion. SLAM accomplishes these four features by using a time-reversed Lagrangian particle dispersion model and then simulating chemical changes forward in time, while tagging and keeping track of different sources. As an example of SLAM's application, we show its use in apportioning sources contributing to ammonia (NH3) and ammonium particulates (p-NH4(+)) at a site in southern Ontario, Canada. Agricultural emissions are seen to dominate contributions to NH3 and p-NH4(+) at the site. The source region of NH3 was significantly smaller than that of p-NH4(+), which covered numerous states of the American Midwest. The source apportionment results from SLAM were compared against those from zeroing-out individual sources ("brute force method"; BFM). The comparisons show SLAM to produce almost identical results as BFM for NH3, but higher concentrations of p-NH4(+), likely due to indirect effects that affect BFM. Finally, uncertainties in the SLAM approach and ways to address such shortcomings by combining SLAM with inverse methods are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".