Molecular composition of clouds: a comparison between samples collected at tropical (Réunion Island, France) and mid-north (Puy de Dôme, France) latitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The composition of dissolved organic matter of cloud water has been investigated through non-targeted high-resolution mass spectrometry on only a few samples that were mostly collected in the Northern Hemisphere in the USA, Europe and China. There remains, therefore, a lack of measurements for clouds located in the Southern Hemisphere, under tropical conditions and influenced by forest emissions. As a matter of fact, the comparison of the composition of clouds collected in different locations is challenging since the methodology for the analysis and data treatment is not standardized. In this work, the chemical composition of three samples collected at Réunion Island (REU) during the BIO-MAÏDO field campaign, in the Indian Ocean, with influences from marine, anthropogenic and biogenic (tropical) emissions, is investigated and compared to the chemical composition of samples collected at the Puy de Dôme (PUY) observatory in France. The same methodology of analysis and data treatment was employed, producing a unique dataset for the investigation of the molecular composition of organic matter in cloud water. Besides the analysis of elemental composition, we investigated the carbon oxidation state (OSC) of dissolved organic matter, finding that overall samples collected at PUY are more oxidized than those collected at REU. Molecular formulas were also classified based on stoichiometric elemental ratios, showing the high frequency and abundance of reduced organic compounds, classified as lipids (LipidC), in this matrix, which led to a search for terpene oxidation products in cloud water samples. To better discriminate between samples collected at PUY and REU, statistical analysis (principal component analysis and agglomerative hierarchical clustering) was performed on the ensemble of molecular formulas and their intensities. Samples collected at REU have a different composition from samples collected at PUY, which is mainly linked to different primary sources, the processing of organic matter in cloud water and the influence of different primary emissions at the two locations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".