A land use regression model for predicting ambient fine particulate matter across Los Angeles, CA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land use regression (LUR) models have been used successfully for predicting local variation in traffic pollution, but few studies have explored this method for deriving fine particle exposure surfaces. The primary purpose of this method is to develop a LUR model for predicting fine particle or PM(2.5) mass over the five county metropolitan statistical area (MSA) of Los Angeles. PM(2.5) includes all particles with diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns. In the Los Angeles MSA, 23 monitors of PM(2.5) were available in the year 2000. This study uses GIS to integrate data regarding land use, transportation and physical geography to derive a PM(2.5) dataset covering Los Angeles. Multiple linear regression was used to create the model for predicting the PM(2.5) surface. Our parsimonious model explained 69% of the variance in PM(2.5) with three predictors: (1) traffic density within 300 m, (2) industrial land area within 5000 m, and (3) government land area within 5000 m of the monitoring site. These results suggest the LUR method can refine exposure models for epidemiologic studies in a North American context.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".