MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1520434679 · doi:10.1029/2012eo220013

Developing air quality forecasts

2012· article· en· W1520434679 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pius Lee, Rick Saylor, J. F. Meagher

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir quality indexHuman healthEnvironmental scienceParticulatesMeteorologySteering committeeAir monitoringQuality (philosophy)AeronauticsPolitical scienceOperations researchGeographyEngineeringEnvironmental healthEngineering managementEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Third International Workshop on Air Quality Forecasting Research; Potomac, Maryland, 29 November to 1 December 2011 Elevated concentrations of both near‐surface ozone (O 3 ) and fine particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter have been implicated in increased mortality and other human health impacts. In light of these known influences on human health, many governments around the world have instituted air quality forecasting systems to provide their citizens with advance warning of impending poor air quality so that they can take actions to limit exposure. In an effort to improve the performance of air quality forecasting systems and provide a forum for the exchange of the latest research in air quality modeling, the International Workshop on Air Quality Forecasting Research (IWAQFR) was established in 2009 and is cosponsored by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Environment Canada (EC), and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The steering committee for IWAQFR's establishment was composed of Véronique Bouchet, Mike Howe, and Craig Stoud (EC); Greg Carmichael (University of Iowa); Paula Davidson and Jim Meagher (NOAA); and Liisa Jalkanen (WMO). The most recent workshop took place in Maryland.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicAir Quality Monitoring and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207