MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009528393 · doi:10.1155/2012/238589

A Parameterized Method for Air-Quality Diagnosis and Its Applications

2012· article· en· W2009528393 on OpenAlexaff
Jie Wang, Sunling Gong, X. Y. Zhang, Yang Yang, Qing Hou, Chunhong Zhou, Y. Q. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Meteorology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir quality indexBeijingMeteorologyWind speedEnvironmental scienceAir pollutionAir Pollution IndexAtmospheric sciencesAir temperatureHumidityGeographyClimatologyMathematicsPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A parameterized method is developed to diagnose the air quality in Beijing and other cities with an index termed (parameters linking air-quality to meteorological elements PLAM) derived from a correlation between PM 10 and relevant weather elements based on the data between 2000 and 2007. Key weather factors for diagnosing the air pollution intensity are identified and included in PLAM that include atmospheric condensation of water vapour, wet potential equivalent temperature, and wind velocity. It is found that the poor air quality days with elevated PM 10 are usually associated with higher PLAM values, featuring higher temperature, humidity, lower wind velocity, and higher stability compared to the averaged values in the same period. Both 24 h and 72 h forecasts provided useful services for the day of the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympic Games and subsequent sport events. A correlation coefficient of 0.82 was achieved between the forecasts and (air pollution index API) and 0.59 between the forecasts and observed PM 10 , all reaching the significant level of 0.001, for the summer period. A correction factor was also introduced to enable the PLAM to diagnose the observed PM 10 concentrations all year round.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations54
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in MeteorologySame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207