MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013401053 · doi:10.1504/ijep.2013.058817

Sensitivity to input parameters of Mobile6.2-AERMOD simulated emissions and concentrations

2013· article· en· W2013401053 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hassan Mohseni Nameghi, Xiaohong Xu, Chris Lee, Paul Henshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environment and Pollution · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAERMODEnvironmental scienceSensitivity (control systems)Atmospheric sciencesMeteorologyAir pollutionAtmospheric dispersion modelingEngineeringGeographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the sensitivity of simulated emissions and airborne NO2 and benzene concentrations to model input parameters. Emission factors were estimated using Mobile6.2 and ambient concentrations were estimated using AERMOD. The simulation was performed for Huron Church Road in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, an arterial road 9 km in length with an average vehicle speed of 50 km/h. Eight scenarios were developed such that one input parameter was changed at a time in the first seven scenarios and compared with the base case. Results showed that emission factors were most sensitive to the choice of vehicle composition (Ontario versus default), followed by the choice of vehicle age distribution (Ontario versus default), and the average speed of vehicles. Simulated concentrations were sensitive to the hour-of-day variation in emission (mainly due to variation in vehicle counts) and when this was not considered, the annual mean concentrations were likely overestimated by up to 27% and maximum hourly concentrations were underestimated. The findings provide insights into determining the level of details of input parameters required for estimation of emissions and concentrations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environment and PollutionSame topicVehicle emissions and performanceFrench-language works237,207