MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041045700 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202023702017

Is Near-Spherical Shape “the New Black” for Smoke ?

2020· article· en· W3041045700 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna Gialitaki, Alexandra Tsekeri, Vassilis Amiridis, Romain Ceolato, Lucas Paulien, Emmanouil Proestakis, Eleni Marinou, Moritz Haarig, Holger Baars, Dimitris Balis

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStavros Niarchos Foundation
KeywordsWavelengthSmokeStratosphereScatteringLidarDepolarization ratioPhysicsParticle (ecology)Computational physicsEnvironmental scienceOpticsMeteorologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present smoke lidar measurements from the Canadian fires of 2017. The advected smoke layers over Europe are detected at both tropospheric and stratospheric heights, with the latter presenting non-typical values of the Particle Linear Depolarization Ratio (PLDR) with strong wavelength dependence from the UV to the Near-IR. Specifically, the PLDR values are of the order of 22, 18 and 4% at 355, 532 and 1064 nm respectively. In an attempt to interpret these results, we apply the hypothesis that smoke particles have near-spherical shapes. Scattering calculations with the T-matrix code support other findings in the literature ([1]- [2]), showing that the near-spherical shape (or closely similar shapes as in [2]), is the only shape that has been shown to reproduce the observed PLDR and Lidar Ratio (LR) values of the stratospheric smoke particles at the three measurement wavelengths.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207