MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516965707 · doi:10.1002/2016gl069922

Phytoplankton blooms weakly influence the cloud forming ability of sea spray aerosol

2016· article· en· W2516965707 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas B. Collins, Timothy H. Bertram, Camille M. Sultana, Christopher Lee, Jessica L. Axson, Kimberly A. Prather

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerosolCloud condensation nucleiSea sprayPhytoplanktonEnvironmental scienceAlgal bloomAlgaeOceanographyBiogeochemistrySeawaterDimethyl sulfideBloomSea salt aerosolAtmospheric sciencesCloud physicsEnvironmental chemistryChemistryNutrientMeteorologySea saltEcologyBiologyCloud computingGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract After many field studies, the establishment of connections between marine microbiological processes, sea spray aerosol (SSA) composition, and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) has remained an elusive challenge. In this study, we induced algae blooms to probe how complex changes in seawater composition impact the ability of nascent SSA to act as CCN, quantified by using the apparent hygroscopicity parameter ( κ app ). Throughout all blooms, κ app ranged between 0.7 and 1.4 (average 0.95 ± 0.15), consistent with laboratory investigations using algae‐produced organic matter, but differing from climate model parameterizations and in situ SSA generation studies. The size distribution of nascent SSA dictates that changes in κ app associated with biological processing induce less than 3% change in expected CCN concentrations for typical marine cloud supersaturations. The insignificant effect of hygroscopicity on CCN concentrations suggests that the SSA production flux and/or secondary aerosol chemistry may be more important factors linking ocean biogeochemistry and marine clouds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations77
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207