MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980608261 · doi:10.1080/02786826.2019.1682509

Natural sources and experimental generation of bioaerosols: Challenges and perspectives

2019· article· en· W2980608261 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAerosol Science and Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIndoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersVetenskapsrådetMinistry of DefenseAFA FörsäkringSvenska Forskningsrådet FormasRichard and Susan Smith Family Foundation
KeywordsAerosolBioaerosolIndoor bioaerosolEnvironmental scienceBiochemical engineeringCharacterization (materials science)Natural (archaeology)Process engineeringComputer scienceMeteorologyNanotechnologyEngineeringGeographyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental aerosol generation methods aim to represent natural processes; however, the complexity is not always captured and unforeseen variability may be introduced into the data. The current practices for natural and experimental aerosol generation techniques are reviewed here. Recommendations for best practice are presented, and include characterization of starting material and spray fluid, rational selection of appropriate aerosol generators, and physical and biological characterization of the output aerosol. Reporting of bioaerosol research should capture sufficient detail to aid data interpretation, reduce variation, and facilitate comparison between research laboratories. Finally, future directions and challenges in bioaerosol generation are discussed.Copyright © 2020 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.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

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 studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.217 · 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