MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793755805 · doi:10.1080/02786826.2018.1440063

Measuring aerosol size distributions with the aerodynamic aerosol classifier

2018· article· en· W2793755805 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler J. Johnson, M. Irwin, Jonathan P. R. Symonds, Jason S. Olfert, Adam Boies

Bibliographic record

VenueAerosol Science and Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCyclone Separators and Fluid Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerosolScanning mobility particle sizerDifferential mobility analyzerCondensation particle counterDeconvolutionElectrical mobilityAerodynamicsParticle-size distributionParticle sizeChemistryEnvironmental scienceParticle numberOpticsMeteorologyMechanicsPhysicsThermodynamicsVolume (thermodynamics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Aerodynamic Aerosol Classifier (AAC) is a novel instrument that selects aerosol particles based on their relaxation time or aerodynamic diameter. Additional theory and characterization is required to allow the AAC to accurately measure an aerosol’s aerodynamic size distribution by stepping while connected to a particle counter (such as a Condensation Particle Counter, CPC). To achieve this goal, this study characterized the AAC transfer function (from 32 nm to 3 μm) using tandem AACs and comparing the experimental results to the theoretical tandem deconvolution. These results show that the AAC transmission efficiency is 2.6–5.1 times higher than a combined Krypton-85 radioactive neutralizer and Differential Mobility Analyzer (DMA), as the AAC classifies particles independent of their charge state. However, the AAC transfer function is 1.3–1.9 times broader than predicted by theory. Using this characterized transfer function, the theory to measure an aerosol’s aerodynamic size distribution using an AAC and particle counter was developed. The transfer function characterization and stepping deconvolution were validated by comparing the size distribution measured with an AAC-CPC system against parallel measurements taken with a Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS), CPC, and Electrical Low Pressure Impactor (ELPI). The effects of changing AAC classifier conditions on the particle selected were also investigated and found to be small (<1.5%) within its operating range. Copyright © 2018 American Association for Aerosol Research

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations86
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAerosol Science and TechnologySame topicCyclone Separators and Fluid DynamicsFrench-language works237,207