MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082755731 · doi:10.3390/atmos11090916

CNT Parameterization Based on the Observed INP Concentration during Arctic Summer Campaigns in a Marine Environment

2020· article· en· W3082755731 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ana Ćirišan, Éric Girard, Jean‐Pierre Blanchet, Setigui Aboubacar Keita, Wanmin Gong, Vickie Irish, Allan K. Bertram

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmosphere · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIce nucleusArcticAtmospheric sciencesAerosolRepresentativeness heuristicEnvironmental scienceThe arcticNucleationParticle (ecology)ClimatologyMeteorologyPhysicsGeologyOceanographyMathematicsStatisticsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aerosol–cloud interactions present a large source of uncertainties in atmospheric and climate models. One of the main challenges to simulate ice clouds is to reproduce the right ice nucleating particle concentration. In this study, we derive a parameterization for immersion freezing according to the classical nucleation theory. Our objective was to constrain this parameterization with observations taken over the Canadian Arctic during the Amundsen summer 2014 and 2016 campaigns. We found a linear dependence of contact angle and temperature. Using this approach, we were able to reproduce the scatter in ice nucleated particle concentrations within a factor 5 of observed values with a small negative bias. This parameterization would be easy to implement in climate and atmospheric models, but its representativeness has to first be validated against other datasets.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmosphereSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207