MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluating Human Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter Part II: Modeling

2010· article· en· W2120466834 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeography Compass · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsParticulatesEnvironmental scienceComponent (thermodynamics)Variety (cybernetics)Exposure assessmentComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsEcologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Exposure modeling has become a fundamental component of exposure analysis as it provides an efficient and economical means for assessing exposure of individuals to populations over a variety of spatial and temporal scales for past, current, future, or hypothetical conditions. For airborne particulate matter, traditional modeling approaches typically utilize ambient concentration data to assign exposure levels across an area of interest for a given period of time. Technological advancements have allowed for more sophisticated and innovative modeling approaches that combine exposure measurements and/or models to integrate the strengths of individual methods. The purpose of this article is to provide a general overview of both conventional and novel approaches of modeling exposure to fine particulate matter.

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.

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 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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.279 · 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