MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008381568 · doi:10.1159/000339673

An Investigation of Airborne Allergenic Pollen at Different Heights

2012· article· en· W2008381568 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaojun Xiao, Aixiang Fu, Xiongjie Xie, Kang Min-xiong, Dongsheng Hu, Ping–Chang Yang, Zhigang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Archives of Allergy and Immunology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollenAnimal scienceBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Airborne pollen is an important source of allergens in a number of allergic diseases. Data on the concentrations of pollen at different heights in the air are scarce. The aim of the present study was to investigate different types and numbers of airborne pollen and their seasonal variation at different heights in the urban area of Shenzhen (China) and their associations with meteorological factors. METHODS: The concentration of airborne pollen at different heights was monitored with Burkard traps from July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, in Shenzhen; the results were analyzed with SAS 9.13 software. RESULTS: In total, 1,095 films (at 3 heights, 365 films at each height) were exposed throughout the year, and 48 families and 85 genera of pollen taxa were identified. The total pollen count was 55,830 grains (25,204 grains at 1.5 m; 16,218 grains at 35 m, and 14,408 grains at 70 m); pollen grains were present in the atmosphere throughout the year, with two peaks of airborne pollen: one peak in February to April and the other in September to November. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our local investigations, the pollen concentrations and the pollen types in the air decrease gradually with increasing height. The distribution and concentrations of airborne pollen at different heights in the atmosphere were influenced by composite factors such as the season and meteorological factors.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Archives of Allergy and ImmunologySame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207