Relationship between the sub-micron fraction (SMF) and fine-mode fraction (FMF) in the context of AERONET retrievals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The sub-micron (SM) aerosol optical depth (AOD) is an optical separation based on the fraction of particles below a specified cutoff radius of the particle size distribution (PSD) at a given particle radius. It is fundamentally different from spectrally separated FM (fine-mode) AOD. We present a simple (AOD-normalized) SM fraction versus FM fraction (SMF vs. FMF) linear equation that explains the well-recognized empirical result of SMF generally being greater than the FMF. The AERONET inversion (AERinv) products (combined inputs of spectral AOD and sky radiance) and the spectral deconvolution algorithm (SDA) products (input of AOD spectra) enable, respectively, an empirical SMF vs. FMF comparison at similar (columnar) remote sensing scales across a variety of aerosol types. SMF (AERinv-derived) vs. FMF (SDA-derived) behavior is primarily dependent on the relative truncated portion (εc) of the coarse-mode (CM) AOD associated with the cutoff portion of the CM PSD and, to a second order, the cutoff FM PSD and FM AOD (εf). The SMF vs. FMF equation largely explains the SMF vs. FMF behavior of the AERinv vs. SDA products as a function of PSD cutoff radius (“inflection point”) across an ensemble of AERONET sites and aerosol types (urban-industrial, biomass burning, dust, maritime and a mixed class of Arctic aerosols). The overarching dynamic was that the linear SMF vs. FMF relation pivots clockwise about the approximate (SMF, FMF) singularity of (1, 1) in a “linearly inverse” fashion (slope and intercept of approximately 1−εc and εc) with increasing cutoff radius. SMF vs. FMF slopes and intercepts derived from AERinv and SDA retrievals confirmed the general domination of εc over εf in controlling that dynamic. A more general conclusion is the apparent confirmation that the optical impact of truncating modal (whole) PSD features can be detected by an SMF vs. FMF analysis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".