MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098471656

ABSTRACT: Loadings of atmospheric

2015· article· en· W7098471656 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAfrican Botany and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticulatesDeposition (geology)Mesoscale meteorologyMercury (programming language)AerosolScavengingAir pollutionBoundary layerAtmosphere (unit)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

mercury to Lake Erie were numerically simulated with the use of speciated Hg emission scenarios from a coal fired power plant on the shore of Lake Erie in Ontario. Three-dimensional numerical modeling experiments were conducted using the BLFMAPS-a Mesoscale Boundary Layer forecast and Air pollution prediction system. The modeling system was utilized to simulate meteorology and the air concentration, dry deposition, wet deposition and air-water exchange of Hg species. Simulations were done for Hg containing particulates with three aerodynamic particle diameters of small (0.25μm), medium (4μm), and large (20μm). The numerical experiments exhibited the different characteristics of Hg concentration and deposition patterns of particulate Hg (P-Hg), gaseous elemental Hg (GEM) and reactive gaseous Hg (RGM). For three out of four emission scenarios RGM is found to be the dominant contributor of the three species of Hg to the Lake Erie loading. The contribution of particulate Hg to the net loading, is relatively small with coarser particles having a stronger deposition rate than finer particles. Fine particles have a longer lifetime in the atmosphere and transport over long distances. 28 % of the coarse particle and 7 % of fine particle emissions were deposited within 100 km of the power plant. Our experiments also suggest that a case with a larger GEM portion of emission (about 90 % of total Hg emission) will have the least amount of total Hg loading to the Lake Erie. Comparison of model results of surface air

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.181 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAfrican Botany and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207