Measurement of the centrifugal particle mass analyzer transfer function
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Particle mass analyzers, in particular the centrifugal particle mass analyzer (CPMA) and the aerosol particle mass analyzer (APM), have provided new possibilities for aerosol science through their ability to classify particles by their mass-to-charge ratio. The performance of the CPMA in classifying particles is characterized by a probability distribution known as a transfer function. This study shows the theoretical models of the CPMA’s transfer function that exist in the literature cannot accurately predict the CPMA’s actual performance. In this study, a tandem CPMA (TCPMA) measurement technique was used to experimentally evaluate the deviation of the actual CPMA transfer function from its idealized triangular transfer function. This deviation was measured by three factors: (i) the width factor (μ), (ii) the height factor (η), and (iii) the mass set point agreement (i.e., the agreement between the set points of the two CPMAs, m12∗); such that concurrent values of 1 for all three factors implied no deviation between the actual and theoretical triangular CPMA transfer functions. These factors were derived by adjusting them to fit TCPMA data with the convolution of two triangular transfer functions with identical widths. TCPMA data were collected for a wide range of CPMA resolutions, flow rates, and mass set points ranging from 2 to 15, 0.3 to 8 LPM, and 0.05 to 100 fg, respectively. The mass set point agreement remained relatively constant over a range of CPMA mass set points and increased slightly with decreasing CPMA resolutions. Neglecting outliers, the average mass set point agreement was m12∗=1.02±0.03, suggesting good reproducibility among the CPMAs. The width factor showed a functional dependence on the mass set point, resolution, and flow rate. It was observed that the CPMA transfer function was generally narrower (μ>1) than the idealized transfer function except at a low flow rate (0.3 LPM) and low mass set points (m∗<1 fg), and the width factor approached unity at higher mass set points (m∗>1 fg) and higher resolutions (Rm>6). As expected, the height factor depends on the mass set point, resolution, and flow rate: it decreases with lower mass set points, lower flow rates and higher resolutions. Both the width and height factors were fitted robustly using multivariate non-linear fitting models so that CPMA users can easily calculate its transfer function over a wide range of operating conditions.Copyright © 2023 American Association for Aerosol Research
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it