A SOM‐based methodology for classifying air quality monitoring stations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The application of mathematical tools can be necessary to provide an integrated analysis and interpretation of the abundant information that can be collected in air quality monitoring networks. This article develops a methodology based on the use of Self‐Organizing Map (SOM) artificial neural networks for integrating data about multiple measured pollutants to group monitoring stations according to their similar air quality. The proposed method considers the subsequent geographical mapping of the clusters of stations observed with the SOM, which can make it possible to detect geographically different areas but that share similar air pollution problems. This methodology is illustrated with its application to a case study in which 517 stations of the Spanish air quality monitoring network were classified considering simultaneously their levels of regulated pollutants in 2005, highlighting some implications of data normalization in the process. In particular, the use of legal limit values to normalize the concentrations of pollutants proved to be especially advisable. Results obtained with the SOM‐based methodology, when compared to classifications based directly on legislation, provided more useful classifications for further air quality management actions, and revealed that these types of tools can facilitate the design of air pollution reduction programs by discovering different areas with similar problems. © 2010 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 2011.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".