A GIS–Environmental Justice Analysis of Particulate Air Pollution in Hamilton, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors address two research questions: (1) Are populations with lower socioeconomic status, compared with people of higher socioeconomic status, more likely to be exposed to higher levels of particulate air pollution in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada? (2) How sensitive is the association between levels of particulate air pollution and socioeconomic status to specification of exposure estimates or statistical models? Total suspended particulate (TSP) data from the twenty-three monitoring stations in Hamilton (1985–94) were interpolated with a universal kriging procedure to develop an estimate of likely pollution values across the city based on annual geometric means and extreme events. Comparing the highest with the lowest exposure zones, the interpolated surfaces showed more than a twofold increase in TSP concentrations and more than a twentyfold difference in the probability of exposure to extreme events. Exposure estimates were related to socioeconomic and demographic data from census tract areas by using ordinary least squares and simultaneous autoregressive (SAR) models. Control for spatial autocorrelation in the SAR models allowed for tests of how robust specific socioeconomic variables were for predicting pollution exposure. Dwelling values were significantly and negatively associated with pollution exposure, a result robust to the method of statistical analysis. Low income and unemployment were also significant predictors of exposure, although results varied depending on the method of analysis. Relatively minor changes in the statistical models altered the significant variables. This result emphasizes the value of geographical information systems (GIS) and spatial statistical techniques in modelling exposure. The result also shows the importance of taking spatial autocorrelation into account in future justice – health studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".