MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tutorial: Guide to error propagation for particle counting measurements

2022· article· en· W4304689153 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aerosol Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council CanadaPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsPropagation of uncertaintyGeneralizationMonte Carlo methodComputer scienceMeasurement uncertaintyContext (archaeology)Poisson distributionImportance samplingAlgorithmSampling (signal processing)Statistical physicsMathematicsStatisticsPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forward error propagation is an established technique for uncertainty quantification (UQ). This article covers practical applications of forward error propagation in the context of particle counting measurements. We begin by presenting pertinent error models, including the Poisson noise model, and assess their role in UQ. Next, we describe several basic techniques for UQ, including Gauss’s formula, its generalization to the Law of Propagation of Uncertainty (LPU), and the use of Monte Carlo (MC) sampling. We conclude with demonstrations of increasing complexity, including total number concentration, total mass concentration, penetration, and mass-based filtration efficiency scenarios. These examples serve two functions: (1) providing examples in which theoretical concepts are practically applied to interpret particle counting data and (2) presenting expressions that can be used to compute uncertainties for specific problems in particle counting measurement.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.249 · 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