MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6959539143 · doi:10.1021/es803623f.s001

Source Attribution of Black Carbon in Arctic Snow

2016· article· en· W6959539143 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPasture and Agricultural Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon blackArcticAerosolSnowBiomass burningThe arcticCarbon fibersBiomass (ecology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snow samples obtained at 36 sites in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Russia, and the Arctic Ocean in early 2007 were analyzed for light-absorbing aerosol concentration together with a suite of associated chemical species. The light absorption data, interpreted as black carbon concentrations, and other chemical data were input into the EPA PMF 1.1 receptor model to explore the sources for black carbon in the snow. The analysis found four factors or sources: two distinct biomass burning sources, a pollution source, and a marine source. The first three of these were responsible for essentially all of the black carbon, with the two biomass sources (encompassing both open and closed combustion) together accounting for >90% of the black carbon.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicPasture and Agricultural SystemsFrench-language works237,207