MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154589423 · doi:10.1021/es403089q

Western European Land Use Regression Incorporating Satellite- and Ground-Based Measurements of NO<sub>2</sub> and PM<sub>10</sub>

2013· article· en· W2154589423 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle Vienneau, Kees de Hoogh, Matthew J. Bechle, Rob Beelen, Aaron van Donkelaar, Randall V. Martin, Dylan B. Millet, Gerard Hoek, Julian Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceSatelliteLand coverLand useAir pollutionRegression analysisAir quality indexMeteorologyPopulationAltitude (triangle)GeographyStatisticsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Land use regression (LUR) models typically investigate within-urban variability in air pollution. Recent improvements in data quality and availability, including satellite-derived pollutant measurements, support fine-scale LUR modeling for larger areas. Here, we describe NO2 and PM10 LUR models for Western Europe (years: 2005-2007) based on >1500 EuroAirnet monitoring sites covering background, industrial, and traffic environments. Predictor variables include land use characteristics, population density, and length of major and minor roads in zones from 0.1 km to 10 km, altitude, and distance to sea. We explore models with and without satellite-based NO2 and PM2.5 as predictor variables, and we compare two available land cover data sets (global; European). Model performance (adjusted R(2)) is 0.48-0.58 for NO2 and 0.22-0.50 for PM10. Inclusion of satellite data improved model performance (adjusted R(2)) by, on average, 0.05 for NO2 and 0.11 for PM10. Models were applied on a 100 m grid across Western Europe; to support future research, these data sets are publicly available.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.216 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations198
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207