MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790349864 · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03027-z

The viscosity of atmospherically relevant organic particles

2018· review· en· W2790349864 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan P. Reid, Allan K. Bertram, David Topping, Alexander Laskin, Scot T. Martin, Markus D. Petters, Francis D. Pope, Grazia Rovelli

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsAerosolViscosityParticle (ecology)Environmental scienceAmorphous solidAtmospheric chemistryHuman healthAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental chemistryChemical physicsAstrobiologyMaterials scienceChemistryMeteorologyPhysicsGeologyOrganic chemistryOzone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of organic aerosol particles in the environment has been long established, influencing cloud formation and lifetime, absorbing and scattering sunlight, affecting atmospheric composition and impacting on human health. Conventionally, ambient organic particles were considered to exist as liquids. Recent observations in field measurements and studies in the laboratory suggest that they may instead exist as highly viscous semi-solids or amorphous glassy solids under certain conditions, with important implications for atmospheric chemistry, climate and air quality. This review explores our understanding of aerosol particle phase, particularly as identified by measurements of the viscosity of organic particles, and the atmospheric implications of phase state.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations502
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207