The influence of sampler height and orientation on airborne<i>Ambrosia</i>pollen counts in Montreal
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airborne pollen concentrations are normally estimated by sampling 10 liters of air a minute at a height of 15-20 meters, e.g. on top of a university or hospital building. It is generally believed that at this height a homogeneous cloud of pollen is sampled, and that the results obtained will be representative of a large area. However, this protocol still leaves some doubts about the actual concentration found at breathing level (1.5 m). Since pollen counts are often used to forecast risk of allergies using threshold values, the height difference in concentrations can have important implications. Many previous studies have tackled this problem, but contradictory results were obtained. In our protocol, personal volumetric Burkard samplers were used at 0, 5, 10 and 15 m and at two different orientation (NW and NE) of a single building in Montreal, Canada. Results from 320 samples show that exposure and sampling hours were non-significant factors of Ambrosia pollen variation, but that height was a factor more significant than daily variations (the usual factor investigated in Aerobiology). An interaction was also found between the influences of height and orientation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 it