MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6963483938 · doi:10.18739/a29w09052

Composition of aerosol in airborne particulate matter and snow at Alert, Canada 2014-2015

2020· dataset· en· W6963483938 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueCalifornia Digital Library · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerosolParticulatesSnowAtmosphere (unit)Carbon fibersCombustionChemical compositionTotal organic carbon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbonaceous aerosols are a major component of fine airborne particulate matter (PM) and play a complex role in the climate system, via their role in light scattering and absorption, cloud nucleation, and the melting of ice- and snow-covered surfaces, and in air pollution and human health. They are removed from the atmosphere via aging and dry and wet deposition. Over the course of one year, we simultaneously analyzed the composition of carbonaceous aerosol in both PM and snow collected at the Dr. Neil Trivett Global Atmosphere Watch Observatory at Alert, Canada. To understand the seasonal variation in the EC (elemental carbon) and OC (organic carbon) burden, we quantified the amount of total carbon (TC) and fraction of light-scattering organic carbon (OC) and light-absorbing elemental carbon (EC) with a Sunset OC/EC analyzer using the EnCan-Total-900 (ECT9) protocol. In addition, we measured the stable carbon value and radiocarbon content of the EC fraction to apportion it into contributions from fossil fuel combustion (gaseous, liquid, and solid fuels such as natural gas, coal, and diesel) and biomass burning (wildfires and biofuel combustion).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCalifornia Digital LibrarySame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207