Peak event analysis: a novel empirical method for the evaluation of elevated particulate events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We report on a novel approach to the analysis of suspended particulate data in a rural setting in southern Ontario. Analyses of suspended particulate matter and associated air quality standards have conventionally focussed on 24-hour mean levels of total suspended particulates (TSP) and particulate matter <10 microns, <2.5 microns and <1 micron in diameter (PM10, PM2.5, PM1, respectively). Less emphasis has been placed on brief peaks in suspended particulate levels, which may pose a substantial nuisance, irritant, or health hazard. These events may also represent a common cause of public complaint and concern regarding air quality. METHODS: Measurements of TSP, PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 levels were taken using an automated device following local complaints of dusty conditions in rural south-central Ontario, Canada. The data consisted of 126,051 by-minute TSP, PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 measurements between May and August 2012. Two analyses were performed and compared. First, conventional descriptive statistics were computed by month for TSP, PM10, PM2.5, and PM1, including mean values and percentiles (70th, 90th, and 95th). Second, a novel graphical analysis method, using density curves and line plots, was conducted to examine peak events occurring at or above the 99th percentile of per-minute TSP readings. We refer to this method as "peak event analysis". Findings of the novel method were compared with findings from the conventional approach. RESULTS: Conventional analyses revealed that mean levels of all categories of suspended particulates and suspended particulate diameter ratios conformed to existing air quality standards. Our novel methodology revealed extreme outlier events above the 99th percentile of readings, with peak PM10 and TSP levels over 20 and 100 times higher than the respective mean values. Peak event analysis revealed and described rare and extreme peak dust events that would not have been detected using conventional descriptive statistics. CONCLUSIONS: Peak event analysis underscored extreme particulate events that may contribute to local complaints regarding intermittently dusty conditions. These outlier events may not appear through conventional analytical approaches. In comparison with conventional descriptive approaches, peak event analysis provided a more analytical and data-driven means to identify suspended particulate events with meaningful and perceptible effects on local residents.
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 | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".