MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regional Transport and Urban Contributions to Fine Particle Concentrations in Southeastern Canada

2002· article· en· W2059495660 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey R. Brook, Carrie D. Lillyman, Marjorie F. Shepherd, Alexandre Mamedov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersMinistry of EnvironmentDesert Research Institute
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCarbon blackTotal organic carbonParticle (ecology)Trace elementMass concentration (chemistry)Atmospheric sciencesCarbon fibersEnvironmental chemistryMeteorologyGeographyChemistryGeologyMaterials scienceOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of various atmospheric transport directions on ambient fine particle (PM2.5) concentrations at several sites in southeastern Canada was estimated (for May-September) using back-trajectory analysis. Three-day back trajectories (four per day) were paired with 6-hr average PM2.5 mass concentrations measured using tapered element oscillating microbalances (TEOM). PM2.5 concentrations at rural locations in the region were affected by nonlocal sources originating in both Canada and the United States. Comparison of sites revealed that, on average, the local contribution to total PM2.5 in the greater Toronto area (GTA) is approximately 30-35%. At each location, average PM2.5 concentrations under south/southwesterly flow conditions were 2-4 times higher than under the corresponding northerly flow conditions. The chemical composition of both urban and rural PM2.5 was determined during two separate 2-week spring/summer measurement campaigns. Components identified included SO4(2-) NO3-, NH4+, black carbon and organic carbon (OC), and trace elements. Higher particle mass at the urban Toronto site was composed of a higher proportion of all components. However, black carbon, NO3-, NaCl, and trace elements were found to be the most enriched over the rural/regional background levels.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations26
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Air & Waste Management AssociationSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207