How frequent is new particle formation over the remote temperate/boreal forest?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The frequency and intensity of new particle formation (NPF) over remote forest regions in the temperate and boreal zones, and thus the importance of NPF for the aerosol budget and life cycle in the pristine atmosphere, remains controversial. Whereas NPF has been shown to occur relatively frequently at several sites in Scandinavia [1], it was found to be nearly absent at a mid-continental site in Siberia [2]. To explore this issue further, we made measurements of aerosol size distributions between 10 and 300 nm diameter at two remote sites in the transition region between temperate and boreal forest in British Columbia, Canada. The measurements covered 23 days during the month of June 2019, at the time when NPF typically reaches its seasonal maximum in remote mid-latitude regions. These are the first such measurements on the North American continent. Although the sites were only 150 km apart, there were dramatic differences in NPF frequency and intensity between them. At the Eagle Lake site, NPF occurred almost daily and nucleation mode particle concentrations reached above 5000 cm-3. In contrast, at the Nazko River site, there were only 6 NPF events in 11 days and nucleation mode particle concentrations reached only about 800 cm-3. The reasons for this difference are under investigation. They may include airmass origins, pre-existing aerosols, density of forest cover in the surrounding regions, and proximity to the Pacific coast. Our results suggest that measurement campaigns in the remote forest regions of North America to investigate the role of NPF with a more comprehensive set of instrumentation are essential for a deeper scientific understanding of this important process. [1] Nieminen et al., Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18 (2018) 14737-14756. [2] Wiedensohler et al., Atmospheric Environment, 200 (2019) 167-169.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".