Assessing the distribution of volatile organic compounds using land use regression in Sarnia, "Chemical Valley", Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Land use regression (LUR) modelling is proposed as a promising approach to meet some of the challenges of assessing the intra-urban spatial variability of ambient air pollutants in urban and industrial settings. However, most of the LUR models to date have focused on nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. This study aimed at developing LUR models to predict BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene and o-xylene) concentrations in Sarnia, 'Chemical Valley', Ontario, and model the intra-urban variability of BTEX compounds in the city for a community health study. METHOD: Using Organic Vapour Monitors, pollutants were monitored at 39 locations across the city of Sarnia for 2 weeks in October 2005. LUR models were developed to generate predictor variables that best estimate BTEX concentrations. RESULTS: Industrial area, dwelling counts, and highways adequately explained most of the variability of BTEX concentrations (R2: 0.78 - 0.81). Correlations between measured BTEX compounds were high (> 0.75). Although most of the predictor variables (e.g. land use) were similar in all the models, their individual contributions to the models were different. CONCLUSION: Yielding potentially different health effects than nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, modelling other air pollutants is essential for a better understanding of the link between air pollution and health. The LUR models developed in these analyses will be used for estimating outdoor exposure to BTEX for a larger community health study aimed at examining the determinants of health in Sarnia.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".