MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158958419 · doi:10.1139/s03-047

Interpretation of air quality data using an air quality index for the city of Kanpur, India

2003· article· en· W2158958419 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mukesh Sharma, Reenu Pandey, Mayank Maheshwari, B. Sengupta, B.P. Shukla, Neetu Gupta, Sulochana Johri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticulatesAir quality indexEnvironmental sciencePollutantMeteorologyIndex (typography)Air pollutionAir Pollution IndexAir pollutantsMonsoonAtmospheric sciencesGeographyChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An air quality index (AQI) is proposed for the City of Kanpur, India, for simplified public information and data interpretation. A maximum operator concept is used to determine the overall AQI; maximum value of sub-indices (of each pollutant) is taken as the overall AQI. The mathematical functions for calculating sub-indices are proposed based on health criteria of the USEPA and Indian air quality standards. The pollutants included in the AQI are: SO2, SPM (suspended particulate matter), O3, NO2, PM10 (particulate matter with a diameter of 10 μm or less), and CO. The investigations into data interpretation using the AQI for Kanpur city have shown that air quality worsens (very poor to severe) in winter months and also during the early summer months (March, April, and part of May). These months are characterized by dusty winds resulting in high SPM. The air quality generally improves in monsoon and post-monsoon period (good to moderate) as rain washes out the pollutants. Over 95% of the time, sub-index values corresponding to SPM levels were responsible for overall AQI. Key words: air quality index, air quality data interpretation, Kanpur, India.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.309
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations33
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicAir Quality Monitoring and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207