MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluating Human Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter Part I: Measurements

2010· article· en· W2156173193 on OpenAlexaff
Gail Millar, Tyler Abel, J.M. Allen, Prabjit Barn, Melanie Noullett, John Spagnol, Peter L. Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueGeography Compass · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticulatesEnvironmental scienceLiving matterHuman healthEnvironmental healthComputer scienceChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Exposure to airborne fine particulate matter has been a pressing issue since the early 1990s when several studies reported health effects at unexpectedly low ambient levels. Since this time, several reviews have addressed various aspects of this topic. This article is the first of a two‐part review of reviews. The intention of these articles is to provide a consolidated overview about fine particulate matter exposure assessment. This article, Part I, begins with a general introduction to particulate matter which includes general properties of particulate matter, how it is classified and how it is associated with health effects. Fundamental concepts related to exposure are also summarized. The remainder of the article focuses on measurement‐based methods for assessing exposure to fine particulate matter. A subsequent article, Part II, addresses modeling approaches used for particulate matter exposure assessment. Current and recommended future directions for assessing exposure to fine particulate matter are also summarized in each of these two articles.

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 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.253 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeography CompassSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207