MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4252113678 · doi:10.5194/acpd-7-12657-2007

Modelling the optical properties of fresh biomass burning aerosol produced in a smoke chamber: results from the EFEU campaign

2007· preprint· en· W4252113678 on OpenAlexaff
Katja Hungershöfer, K. Zeromskiene, Yoshiteru Iinuma, G. Helas, J. Trentmann, Thomas Trautmann, Rahul Parmar, Alfred Wiedensohler, Meinrat O. Andreae, Otmar Schmid

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersMax-Planck-GesellschaftBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsAerosolCombustionBiomass (ecology)SmokeAbsorption (acoustics)Environmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesBiomass burningScatteringAtmosphere (unit)Vegetation (pathology)ChemistryMeteorologyPhysicsOpticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A better characterisation of the optical properties of biomass burning aerosol as a function of the burning conditions is required in order to quantify their effects on climate and atmospheric chemistry. Controlled laboratory combustion experiments with different fuel types were carried out at the combustion facility of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry (Mainz, Germany) as part of the 'Impact of Vegetation Fires on the Composition and Circulation of the Atmosphere' (EFEU) project. Using the measured size distributions as well as mass scattering and absorption efficiencies, Mie calculations provided mean effective refractive indices of 1.60−0.010i and 1.56−0.010i (λ=0.55 μm) for smoke particles emitted from the combustion of savanna grass and an African hardwood (musasa), respectively. The relatively low imaginary parts suggest that the light-absorbing carbon of the investigated fresh biomass burning aerosol is only partly graphitized, resulting in strongly scattering and less absorbing particles. While the observed variability in mass scattering efficiencies was consistent with changes in particle size, the changes in the mass absorption efficiency can only be explained, if the chemical composition of the particles varies with combustion conditions.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols→French-language works237,207→