Aerosol classification using airborne High Spectral Resolution Lidar measurements – methodology and examples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) airborne High Spectral Resolution Lidar (HSRL) on the NASA B200 aircraft has acquired extensive datasets of aerosol extinction (532 nm), aerosol optical thickness (AOT) (532 nm), backscatter (532 and 1064 nm), and depolarization (532 and 1064 nm) profiles during 18 field missions that have been conducted over North America since 2006. The lidar measurements of aerosol intensive parameters (lidar ratio, depolarization, backscatter color ratio, and spectral depolarization ratio) are shown to vary with location and aerosol type. A methodology based on observations of known aerosol types is used to qualitatively classify the extensive set of HSRL aerosol measurements into eight separate types. Several examples are presented showing how the aerosol intensive parameters vary with aerosol type and how these aerosols are classified according to this new methodology. The HSRL-based classification reveals vertical variability of aerosol types during the NASA ARCTAS field experiment conducted over Alaska and northwest Canada during 2008. In two examples derived from flights conducted during ARCTAS, the HSRL classification of biomass burning smoke is shown to be consistent with aerosol types derived from coincident airborne in situ measurements of particle size and composition. The HSRL retrievals of AOT and inferences of aerosol types are used to apportion AOT to aerosol type; results of this analysis are shown for several experiments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".