MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Supplementary material to "Secondary organic aerosol formation from α-pinene, alkanes and oil sands related precursors in a new oxidation flow reactor"

2019· preprint· en· W4252647470 on OpenAlexaff
Kun Li, John Liggio, Patrick Lee, Chong Han, Qifan Liu, Shao‐Meng Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPineneChemistryAerosolOil sandsOrganic chemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design of the ECCC-OFR (Environment and Climate Change Canada oxidation flow reactor) was partially based upon recent OFRs designs (Lambe et al., 2011;Huang et al., 2017;Simonen et al., 2017) with several small specific differences.The specific differences and similarities between the various reported OFRs is described below.Comparison with the PAM (Potential Aerosol Mass) reactor (Lambe et al., 2011):The ECCC-OFR utilizes a conical diffusion inlet, while PAM employs a straight inlet.The straight inlet is likely to lead to some jetting and recirculation, while cone inlet should have improved fluid dynamics (Huang et al., 2017;Mitroo et al., 2018).The lamps of the ECCC-OFR are located on the outside of the reactor, while the lamps for the PAM are located inside the reactor which can increase surface-to-volume ratio and hence wall losses.Finally, both OFRs sample from the center with appropriate side flows as exhaust, however the ECCC-OFR uses a sampling tube which is 12.7 cm offset from the end of the OFR.Comparison with CPOT (Caltech Photooxidation Flow Tube) (Huang et al., 2017): Both of these OFRs use a conical diffusion inlet, with the lamps of both located out of the reactor.The ECCC-OFR samples from a center port, while CPOT samples all gases at the exit cone.The CPOT has a larger surface-tovolume ratio and a longer residence time (~1500 s) compared to the ECCC-OFR, which may lead to larger wall losses of particles and organic vapors.Comparison with TSAR (TUT Secondary Aerosol Reactor) (Simonen et al., 2017):Both of these OFRs make use of a conical inlet, with lamps located on the outside of the reactor.These OFRs both sample from the OFR center-line, with sampling tubes offset from the end of the reactors.The TSAR is designed for rapidly changing sources, with a volume that is smaller (3.3 L) and a residence time which is shorter (37 s) (Simonen et al., 2017).As a result, the OH concentration within the TSAR will be higher at the same OH exposure.The LVOCs inside the reactor can be consumed by high concentration of OH, or exit the OFR because due to insufficient time to condense on aerosols (Simonen et al., 2017).

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5830.153

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207