MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021980337 · doi:10.1029/2019gl086764

Black Carbon Particles Do Not Matter for Immersion Mode Ice Nucleation

2020· article· en· W3021980337 on OpenAlexaff
Zamin A. Kanji, André Welti, Joel C. Corbin, A. A. Mensah

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaMétis National Council
FundersEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsSootIce nucleusImmersion (mathematics)NucleationCarbon blackIce crystalsMaterials scienceIce cloudParticle sizeMineralogyClear iceChemical engineeringGeologyChemistryThermodynamicsSea iceComposite materialMeteorologyPhysicsArctic ice packCombustionOpticsOceanographyPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The role of black carbon (BC) in ice crystal formation via immersion freezing relevant for mixed‐phase cloud formation is uncertain. Previous studies report either negligible or significant contributions of BC particles to cloud glaciation via immersion freezing. Despite conflicting evidence, immersion freezing by BC particles is included in several cloud models. Here we show that fossil fuel soot and commercially available hydrocarbon BC is inactive as immersion freezing nuclei for atmospherically relevant particle sizes and surface areas. Instead, temperatures <235 K are necessary for freezing droplets with immersed soot particles, implying homogeneous freezing, rather than immersion freezing by soot. A comparison of the results to previous studies using larger soot aggregates and dust reveals the ineffectiveness of soot as immersion ice nucleating particles. We conclude that soot particles with properties like those investigated here can be neglected for simulating ice nucleation in mixed‐phase clouds.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations127
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207