Using spectral methods to obtain particle size information from optical data: applications to measurements from CARES 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Multi-wavelength in situ aerosol extinction, absorption and scattering measurements made at two ground sites during the 2010 Carbonaceous Aerosols and Radiative Effects Study (CARES) are analyzed using a spectral deconvolution method that allows extraction of particle-size-related information, including the fraction of extinction produced by the fine-mode particles and the effective radius of the fine mode. The spectral deconvolution method is typically applied to analysis of remote sensing measurements. Here, its application to in situ measurements allows for comparison with more direct measurement methods and validation of the retrieval approach. Overall, the retrieved fine-mode fraction and effective radius compare well with other in situ measurements, including size distribution measurements and scattering and absorption measurements made separately for PM1 and PM10, although there were some periods during which the different methods yielded different results. One key contributor to differences between the results obtained is the alternative, spectrally based definitions of fine and coarse modes from the optical methods, relative to instruments that use a physically defined cut point. These results indicate that for campaigns where size, composition and multi-wavelength optical property measurements are made, comparison of the results can result in closure or can identify unusual circumstances. The comparison here also demonstrates that in situ multi-wavelength optical property measurements can be used to determine information about particle size distributions in situations where direct size distribution measurements are not available.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".