MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902612615 · doi:10.1080/02786826.2018.1555368

Multiple scattering correction factor estimation for aethalometer aerosol absorption coefficient measurement

2018· article· en· W2902612615 on OpenAlexaff
Ji‐Hyoung Kim, Sang‐Woo Kim, J. A. Ogren, Patrick J. Sheridan, Soon‐Chang Yoon, Sangeeta Sharma, Neng‐Huei Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueAerosol Science and Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAethalometerAerosolAnalytical Chemistry (journal)WavelengthChemistryAttenuation coefficientLinear regressionAbsorption (acoustics)SootSingle-scattering albedoOpticsPhysicsStatisticsMathematicsChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We estimate the multiple scattering correction factor (Cref), which is an empirical constant required to correct aerosol absorption coefficient (σap) measurements for the multiple scattering artifacts of aethalometer, using a multiplier derived from a linear regression method (CrefLRL). Estimated CrefLRL values during the Cheju ABC Plume Monsoon EXperiment (CAPMEX) are 3.99 (405 nm), 4.48 (532 nm), and 5.46 (781 nm) using aethalometer and 3-wavelength PhotoAcoustic Soot Spectrometer (PASS-3). The difference between these CrefLRL values and those of a previous study (CrefW03) are ˗8.0% (405 nm), 20.1% (532 nm), and 30.2% (781 nm); the difference is greater at larger wavelengths because the linear regression line intercept is larger. CrefW03 varies by up to 121% with increasing aerosol absorption coefficient (σap) at 532 and 781 nm, whereas CrefLRL varies by only 36.8%. CrefW03 and CrefLRL determined during CAPMEX were applied to year-round aethalometer σap measurements (σapW03 and σapLRL, respectively) at Gosan (GSN), Lulin (LLN), and Alert (ALT) stations. σapW03 and σapLRL were compared to concurrent σap measurements from Continuous Light Absorption Photometer (CLAP; σapCLAP). At GSN, the bias difference and root mean square difference of σapW03 from σapCLAP are ˗23.1 and 25.8%; however, those of σapLRL from σapCLAP are ˗9.0 and 17.9%, respectively. LLN and ALT both exhibit a greater difference between σapW03 and σapCLAP than between σapLRL and σapCLAP. This suggests that CrefLRLcan be applied to year-round aethalometer measurements. Furthermore, σapLRL agrees better with σapCLAP than σapW03 in all three environments.Copyright © 2019 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAerosol Science and TechnologySame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207