MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determination of the Source Areas Contributing to Regionally High Warm Season PM<sub>2.5</sub>in Eastern North America

2004· article· en· W2046675669 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey R. Brook, David C. Johnson, Alexandre Mamedov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical geographyEnvironmental scienceGeographyAir mass (solar energy)Spatial distribution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An ensemble-trajectory analysis technique known as Quantitative Transport Bias Analysis was applied to determine which geographic areas systematically contributed to above- and below-average fine particle mass (PM2.5) over eastern North America. Six-hour average measurements from 12 rural or suburban locations in eastern North America collected using a tapered element oscillating microbalance were individually associated with corresponding 3-day back-trajectories for the warm seasons (May-September) of 2000 and 2001. Much of the populated areas of northeastern North America were implicated in the build-up of PM2.5 to above-average concentrations. The finer structure of the Quantitative Transport Bias Analysis pattern indicated that transport from the Ohio River Valley, particularly the eastern portion of this area, was most often associated with the highest PM2.5 concentrations. In addition, air masses originating over a relatively large area from southeast Ohio to the western part of Virginia and the western Kentucky to central Tennessee area tended to result in relatively high PM2.5 concentrations over northeastern North America. These observation-based findings were consistent with the spatial distribution of the main sulfur dioxide emissions sources and the major oxides of nitrogen point sources.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Air & Waste Management AssociationSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207