MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071279271 · doi:10.2495/sdp-v7-n4-428-445

A novel method for defining hourly background no<sub>2</sub>and pm<sub>10</sub>concentrations for use in local air quality modelling studies and comparison to exisiting practises

2012· article· en· W2071279271 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aoife Donnelly, Brian Broderick, Bruce Misstear

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir quality indexQuality (philosophy)Environmental scienceAir pollutionWaste managementMeteorologyEngineeringGeographyChemistryPhysicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accuracy of air quality modelling studies is signifi cantly infl uenced by the values adopted for background concentrations. In the absence of a reliable method of combining modelled and background concentrations, it has been common practice to sum the percentiles or annual means of each contribution to obtain a value for comparison with short-term limit values. This is often not appropriate as in many cases the meteorological conditions producing high concentrations from the source do not correspond to those resulting in high background concentrations. A novel method for predicting variable hourly background NO 2 and PM 10 concentrations based on diurnal and seasonal variations and variation with wind speed and direction has been developed and compared to a baseline method. The variable method has been compared to commonly applied methods such as the annual mean or percentile method. Furthermore, the validity of a number of equations derived in the UK to add background concentrations to modelled stack contributions has been examined for Irish conditions. The equations allow a total percentile concentration to be predicted at a given receptor based on an annual mean background concentration and hourly modelled concentrations. A theoretical line source was modelled using Caline4 and corresponding meteorological data, and the addition equations applied using monitored background NO 2 and PM 10 data. The methods were also tested for a point source, modelled using the Point source Gaussian plume equation. Baseline values were calculated by addition of the relevant hourly or daily background concentration to the modelled concentrations to produce a full year of total hourly or daily concentrations. Percentiles and annual mean values, and corresponding 95% confi dence limits were calculated directly from this data set and concentrations predicted by each method assessed for agreement. The variable method was found to produce the best results for both NO 2 and PM 10 when modelling a point and line source. Of the technical addition equations, the sum of squares method performed best for PM 10 and NO 2 . The annual mean and the percentile methods performed poorly in all instances producing very large under-and overestimations highlighting the importance of this research. It is anticipated that this novel method will produce signifi cant improvements in the overall accuracy of local air quality modelling studies.

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 score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207