Comparison of fresh and aged smoke particles simultaneously observed at the ACTRIS Potenza observatory 
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a detailed analysis of the optical and microphysical properties of biomass burning aerosols from two distinct smoke plumes observed on 16 July 2024 at the CIAO atmospheric observatory in Potenza, Italy. The lower layer corresponds to a local wildfire, while the upper layer correspond to  a long-range transported plume from Canada. The objective is to highlight significant differences in their characteristics and atmospheric impacts.The local fire was characterized not only with lidar measurements, but with all the remote sensing instruments present in the observatory. The fire, ignited around 16:00 UTC approximately 2 km from the observatory, was detected within an hour. Ceilometer lidar and radar data showed that wildfire particles ascended to 3 km, where elevated humidity facilitated the formation of condensation nuclei, confirmed by a radiometer-observed peak in liquid water content. The ACSM (Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor) and aethalometer measurements show a significant peak around 20:00 UTC, which coincides with the deposition of the particles. The inversion results from lidar measurements revealed a low contribution of black carbon and fine-mode particles, consistent with incomplete combustion typical of small-scale fires. Furthermore, a strong dependence on humidity variations was observed, emphasizing the dynamic interaction between local fires and atmospheric conditions.In contrast, the Canadian wildfire plume, transported at altitudes between 5.5 and 6.5 km, exhibited different characteristics. Due the complete combustion particles have a higher absorption properties. The lidar ratio at 532 nm exceeded that at 355 nm, similar with previous observations of aged wildfire plumes. During long-range transport, aging processes such as coagulation significantly altered the particles, increasing their effective radius. Microphysical analysis indicated the presence of larger, more absorbent particles compared to the local plume.This study underscores the importance of integrating remote sensing and in-situ measurements to capture the lifecycle of wildfire events. The results reveal a great variability in smoke plume properties, which must be accounted for in radiative transfer models to accurately assess their atmospheric and climatic impacts.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".