MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604681542 · doi:10.5194/acp-17-12097-2017

Classifying aerosol type using in situ surface spectral aerosol optical properties

2017· article· en· W2604681542 on OpenAlexafffund
Lauren Schmeisser, Elisabeth Andrews, J. A. Ogren, Patrick J. Sheridan, Anne Jefferson, Sangeeta Sharma, Jeong Eun Kim, James P. Sherman, M. Sorribas, Ivo Kalapov, Todor Arsov, Christo Angelov, O. L. Mayol‐Bracero, Casper Labuschagne, András Hoffer, Neng-Huei Lin, Hao-Ping Chia, Michael Bergin, Junying Sun, Peng Liu, Hao Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaEnvironmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. TaiwanMinisterio de Ciencia y TecnologíaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaBulgarian Academy of SciencesEuropean CommissionU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsAerosolAngstrom exponentSingle-scattering albedoEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesRadiative forcingMeteorologyRemote sensingPhysicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Knowledge of aerosol size and composition is important for determining radiative forcing effects of aerosols, identifying aerosol sources and improving aerosol satellite retrieval algorithms. The ability to extrapolate aerosol size and composition, or type, from intensive aerosol optical properties can help expand the current knowledge of spatiotemporal variability in aerosol type globally, particularly where chemical composition measurements do not exist concurrently with optical property measurements. This study uses medians of the scattering Ångström exponent (SAE), absorption Ångström exponent (AAE) and single scattering albedo (SSA) from 24 stations within the NOAA/ESRL Federated Aerosol Monitoring Network to infer aerosol type using previously published aerosol classification schemes.Three methods are implemented to obtain a best estimate of dominant aerosol type at each station using aerosol optical properties. The first method plots station medians into an AAE vs. SAE plot space, so that a unique combination of intensive properties corresponds with an aerosol type. The second typing method expands on the first by introducing a multivariate cluster analysis, which aims to group stations with similar optical characteristics and thus similar dominant aerosol type. The third and final classification method pairs 3-day backward air mass trajectories with median aerosol optical properties to explore the relationship between trajectory origin (proxy for likely aerosol type) and aerosol intensive parameters, while allowing for multiple dominant aerosol types at each station.The three aerosol classification methods have some common, and thus robust, results. In general, estimating dominant aerosol type using optical properties is best suited for site locations with a stable and homogenous aerosol population, particularly continental polluted (carbonaceous aerosol), marine polluted (carbonaceous aerosol mixed with sea salt) and continental dust/biomass sites (dust and carbonaceous aerosol); however, current classification schemes perform poorly when predicting dominant aerosol type at remote marine and Arctic sites and at stations with more complex locations and topography where variable aerosol populations are not well represented by median optical properties. Although the aerosol classification methods presented here provide new ways to reduce ambiguity in typing schemes, there is more work needed to find aerosol typing methods that are useful for a larger range of geographic locations and aerosol populations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations142
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207