Using satellite‐based measurements to explore spatiotemporal scales and variability of drivers of new particle formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract New particle formation (NPF) can potentially alter regional climate by increasing aerosol particle (hereafter particle) number concentrations and ultimately cloud condensation nuclei. The large scales on which NPF is manifest indicate potential to use satellite‐based (inherently spatially averaged) measurements of atmospheric conditions to diagnose the occurrence of NPF and NPF characteristics. We demonstrate the potential for using satellite‐based measurements of insolation (UV), trace gas concentrations (sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ammonia (NH3), formaldehyde (HCHO), and ozone (O3)), aerosol optical properties (aerosol optical depth (AOD) and Ångström exponent (AE)), and a proxy of biogenic volatile organic compound emissions (leaf area index (LAI) and temperature (T)) as predictors for NPF characteristics: formation rates, growth rates, survival probabilities, and ultrafine particle (UFP) concentrations at five locations across North America. NPF at all sites is most frequent in spring, exhibits a one‐day autocorrelation, and is associated with low condensational sink (AOD × AE) and HCHO concentrations, and high UV. However, there are important site‐to‐site variations in NPF frequency and characteristics, and in which of the predictor variables (particularly gas concentrations) significantly contribute to the explanatory power of regression models built to predict those characteristics. This finding may provide a partial explanation for the reported spatial variability in skill of simple generalized nucleation schemes in reproducing observed NPF. In contrast to more simple proxies developed in prior studies (e.g., based on AOD, AE, SO2, and UV), use of additional predictors (NO2, NH3, HCHO, LAI, T, and O3) increases the explained temporal variance of UFP concentrations at all sites.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".