Assessing the accuracy of complex refractive index retrievals from single aerosol particle cavity ring-down spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cavity ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS) of single, optically manipulated aerosol particles affords quantitative retrieval of refractive indices for particles of fixed or evolving composition with high precision. Here, we quantify the accuracy with which refractive index determinations can be made by CRDS for single particles confined within the core of a Bessel laser beam and how that accuracy is degraded as the particle size is progressively reduced from the coarse mode (>1 μm radius) to the accumulation mode (<500 nm radius) regime. We apply generalized Lorenz–Mie theory to the intra-cavity standing wave to explore the effect of particle absorption on the distribution of extinction cross section determinations resulting from stochastic particle motion in the Bessel beam trap. The analysis provides an assessment of the accuracy with which the real, <i>n</i>, and imaginary, κ, components of the refractive index can be determined for a single aerosol particle. Published with license by American Association for Aerosol Research Read the transcript Watch the video on Vimeo
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".