Supplementary material to "Data-driven modeling of environmental factors influencing Arctic methanesulfonic acid aerosol concentrations"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In situ aerosol observationsAt Alert, Canada (82.5 N, 62.4 W, 210 m above sea level (asl)), aerosols, with no upper size limits, were sampled onto filters (20x25 cm Whatman 41) using a high-volume sampler with a nominal duration of seven days.MSA was extracted using deionized water and sonication (>97 % extraction efficiency) (Li and Barrie, 1993).MSA was quantified using a Dionex 4500i ion chromatograph with a 200 L injection loop, AS4A column, conductivity detector, and an eluent of 5 mM Na 2 B 4 O 7 at 2.0 mL min -1 .In between analyses, the column was flushed with 28 mM Na 2 B 4 O 7 and then re-equilibrated with 5 mM Na 2 B 4 O 7 .A micromembrane suppressor (H 2 SO 4 ) was included to reduce the baseline conductivity and therefore background noise.The step function for the eluent concentration during analysis was incorporated to avoid interferences from the later elution of stronger anions (Li and Barrie, 1993).The analytical precision and accuracy are listed at 5 and 2 %, respectively, the uncertainty is estimated to be < 13% (Barrie et al., 1989), and the detection limits range from 0.03 to 0.4 ng m -3 (Sharma et al., 2012(Sharma et al., , 2019)).Gruvebadet Observatory, in Ny-lesund, Norway on the Svalbard Archipelago (78.9N, 11.9 E, 50 m asl) has collected aerosol chemical composition since 2010 from March to September with a time resolution of 24 hours.The Thule High Arctic Atmospheric Observatory (THAAO) in Pituffik, Greenland (hereafter referred to as Pituffik/Thule) (76.5N, 68.8 W, 220 m asl) began sampling aerosol chemical composition in 2010 with a time resolution of 48 hours.For both stations, dominant wind directions indicate that local emissions are not influencing either station (Maturilli et al.,
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".