MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079355150 · doi:10.1080/09603123.2013.807328

Air quality at outdoor community events: findings from fine particulate (PM<sub>2.5</sub>) sampling at festivals in Edmonton, Alberta

2013· article· en· W2079355150 on OpenAlexaffabout
Damian Collins, Marc Parsons, Chaka Zinyemba

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Health Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticulatesAir quality indexEnvironmental scienceSampling (signal processing)Air pollutionEnvironmental engineeringMeteorologyGeographyEngineeringEcologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is associated with a broad range of health risks. This study assessed the impacts of cooking smoke and environmental tobacco smoke on air quality at outdoor community events in Edmonton, Alberta (Canada). Data were collected at three festivals in July-August 2011 using a portable real-time airborne particle monitor. The pooled mean PM2.5 level was 12.41 μg/m(3). Peak readings varied from 52 to 1877 μg/m(3). Mean PM2.5 near food stalls was 35.42 μg/m(3), which exceeds the WHO limit for 24 h exposure. Mean PM2.5 levels with smokers present were 16.39 μg/m(3) (all points) and 9.64 μg/m(3) (excluding points near food stalls). Although some smokers withdrew from common spaces, on average 20 smokers/hour were observed within 3 m. Extending smoking bans would improve air quality and address related concerns. However, food preparation is a more pressing area for policy action to reduce PM2.5 exposure at these community events.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.251 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Health ResearchSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207