Spatiotemporal Modeling of Ozone Levels in Quebec (Canada): A Comparison of Kriging, Land-Use Regression (LUR), and Combined Bayesian Maximum Entropy–LUR Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ambient air ozone (O3) is a pulmonary irritant that has been associated with respiratory health effects including increased lung inflammation and permeability, airway hyperreactivity, respiratory symptoms, and decreased lung function. Estimation of O3 exposure is a complex task because the pollutant exhibits complex spatiotemporal patterns. To refine the quality of exposure estimation, various spatiotemporal methods have been developed worldwide. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the accuracy of three spatiotemporal models to predict summer ground-level O3 in Quebec, Canada. METHODS: We developed a land-use mixed-effects regression (LUR) model based on readily available data (air quality and meteorological monitoring data, road networks information, latitude), a Bayesian maximum entropy (BME) model incorporating both O3 monitoring station data and the land-use mixed model outputs (BME-LUR), and a kriging method model based only on available O3 monitoring station data (BME kriging). We performed leave-one-station-out cross-validation and visually assessed the predictive capability of each model by examining the mean temporal and spatial distributions of the average estimated errors. RESULTS: The BME-LUR was the best predictive model (R2 = 0.653) with the lowest root mean-square error (RMSE ;7.06 ppb), followed by the LUR model (R2 = 0.466, RMSE = 8.747) and the BME kriging model (R2 = 0.414, RMSE = 9.164). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that errors of estimation in the interpolation of O3 concentrations with BME can be greatly reduced by incorporating outputs from a LUR model developed with readily available data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".