MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3098284269 · doi:10.1029/2020jd033125

Seasonal Cycle of Isotope‐Based Source Apportionment of Elemental Carbon in Airborne Particulate Matter and Snow at Alert, Canada

2020· article· en· W3098284269 on OpenAlexafffundabout
B. Rodriguez, Lin Huang, Guaciara M. Santos, W. Zhang, Vincent Vetro, Xiaomei Xu, S. Kim, C. I. Czimczik

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersStockholms UniversitetEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsSnowEnvironmental scienceParticulatesAerosolArcticIsotopes of carbonAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental chemistryCarbon fibersCombustionBiomass (ecology)Radiocarbon datingAtmosphere (unit)Carbon cycleTotal organic carbonChemistryMeteorologyOceanographyGeologyEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Elemental carbon (EC) is a major light‐absorbing component of atmospheric aerosol particles. Here, we report the seasonal variation in EC concentrations and sources in airborne particulate matter (PM) and snow at Alert, Canada, from March 2014 to June 2015. We isolated the EC fraction with the EnCan‐Total‐900 (ECT9) protocol and quantified its stable carbon isotope composition (δ13C) and radiocarbon content (∆14C) to apportion EC into contributions from fossil fuel combustion and biomass burning (wildfires and biofuel combustion). Ten‐day backward trajectories show EC aerosols reaching Alert by traveling over the Arctic Ocean from the Russian Arctic during winter and from North America (>40°N) during summer. EC concentrations range from 1.8–135.3 ng C m−3 air (1.9–41.2% of total carbon [TC], n = 48), with lowest values in summer (1.8–44.5 ng C m−3 air, n = 9). EC in PM (Δ14C = ‐532 ± 114‰ [ave. ± SD, n = 20]) and snow (−257 ± 131‰, n = 7) was depleted in 14C relative to current ambient CO2 year‐round. EC in PM mainly originated from liquid and solid fossil fuels from fall to spring (47–70% fossil), but had greater contributions from biomass burning in summer (48–80% modern carbon). EC in snow was mostly from biomass burning (53–88%). Our data show that biomass burning EC is preferentially incorporated into snow because of scavenging processes within the Arctic atmosphere or long‐range transport in storm systems. This work provides a comprehensive view of EC particles captured in the High Arctic through wet and dry deposition and demonstrates that surface stations monitoring EC in PM might underestimate biomass burning and transport.

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)0.000
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols→French-language works237,207→